1921-05-17

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, May 16, the debate on the motion of Hon. Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. W. S. Fielding.
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, the occasion of the Budget speech gives to the House and the country the opportunity to review the state of financial health of the nation. A Budget speech, because of what it may contain, is always of interest at any time; but on an occasion such as the present, when the country has passed through four or five years of war that was a new experience for us; when that war has added greatly to our debt; when it has disturbed our economic conditions as they have never been disturbed before;-a Budget under such circumstances as these, is a matter of interest, and profound interest, to the people of any country, and particularly to the people5 of Canada.
Before I discuss the proposals contained in the Budget delivered by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) the other day, I wish to refer to one or two statements made by my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) and, I think, by the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Casselman) in his speech the other evening. These hon. gentlemen directed some criticism against my administration of the Department of Agriculture when I was a member of the Government. Their criticism was that I had failed in my duty to the agricultural people of Canada, in that I had permitted their products to be sold in the markets of the world, to the Allies at prices greatly below their actual value; and they therefore chided me and held me up to reproach because that condition had existed. Well, I bear in mind that my
	, ;
hon. friends supported the policy of that time because it was the policy of the Government of the day and not of the Minister of Agriculture. They supported it in the past, and it is rather a late occasion now on which to rake up criticism of this kind. What were the facts that faced the country under those conditions of war? They were such that there were no free markets -for our products. The Allied countries of Europe, as every one in the House and out of it knows, were buying their requirements through one or two agencies who controlled the shipping on the high seas and absolutely controlled the prices that producers in either Canada or the United States could get for their products. Under those circumstances, therefore, there was no other course for the Government of the day to follow than to make the best arrangements possible with the buyers in Europe; and I am free to confess that, in my opinion, in the great majority of cases the Allied purchasing agents, wielding the power they possessed through unified control in buying, dealt fairly generously with the producers on the North American continent.
I desire now to deal with the Budget statement delivered by the Minister of Finance the other day, and I am bound to say that my hon. friend, in the statement he has presented to the House this year, has fallen far short of the standard he set in his Budget speech of a year ago. At that time his speech was clear and courageous; it contained a note of courage and encouragement to the country. On the present occasion, however; these qualities are entirely lacking. A year ago my hon. friend made this declaration:
The duty to-day is not only to carry on the government of the country without any additions to the debt, but, on the other hand, to promote measures which will reduce the nation's obligations.
Now, that was a sound declaration of policy at that time. It contained two things in particular: First, the view that there should be no increase in the debt, and, second, that steps should be taken to reduce the nation's obligations. But what do we find in the present Budget speech? Do we find that ideal carried out by my hon. friend? Not at all. We find, on the contrary, that our debt has increased by over $100,000,000, and we find, as I shall show presently, absolutely not one word by way of provision for the future as to how we shall care for our heavy commitments that fall due, within the next few years. Now, in this statement my hon. friend

figures out a surplus. One would almost imagine that this Budget was the precursor of an election,-and I am not at all certain but that the Government, in the rather uncertain times that lie ahead of them, are making a.virtue of necessity and have dressed up their Budget proposals so that they will have the finest possible appearance to the country. What does my hon. friend claim? He claims a surplus of $69,000,000, and other hon. gentlemen who sit behind him have played upon this string and have pointed out what a splendid thing it is to have a Government that can produce a surplus of $69,000,000 in a year like this. But how does my hon. friend reach his surplus? He has reached it by charging up to capital expenditure items, and very large items, that should be paid out of ordinary revenue. We are faced with our railway situation, which every one admits is serious. Now, one principle, absolutely, should Ibe laid down in the financing of this enterprise, and that is, that the deficits that occur in operation, and the sums that are necessary to meet interest on fixed charges, should be paid out of income and! not charged up to capital. That is only the position which any ordinary business house would take But does my hon. friend do that? Not at all. We find that the interest on these obligations and the operating deficits have been charged up; and after charging them up my hon. friend arrives at a surplus of $69,000,000. If these charges had been met, as they should have been met, and would have been met by a courageous government, there would have been no surplus, and the facts would have been placed frankly before the people that our income last year did not meet our expenditure.
Have we any hope of improvement for the future? My hon. friend is budgeting this year for a considerable sum of money. He hopes to raise the same revenue that he raised last year, namely, $432,000,000, and he details the items. He speaks of estimated consolidated revenue expenditure $343,000,000-I am giving round figures-estimated capital expenditure $27,000,000; estimated demobilization expenditure $7,000,000-a total of $378,000,000. He sets that down as the amount that should be paid out of current revenue, but he goes on further and he has an item of $50,000,000 for the Canadian Northern railway, $89,000,000 for the Grand Trunk railway, and $26,000,000 for the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. Some of these charges in respect of the railways are of
the nature of capital improvements and therefore could properly (be charged to capital; but many of them-I venture to say half of them although the House has not the detailed information from my hon. friend-are charges to meet interest on investments, or to pay operating deficits; and to that extent the statement is not a sound statement to place before the country. My hon. friend practically makes that admission a little later in his Budget speech, and I submit that his statement of our national finances is not such a statement as should be placed before the people at this time. If there ever was a time in the history of Canada when Parliament and the Government should deal frankly with the country in respect to the question of expenditures and revenues it is now, because only by sustaining the courage and receiving the support of our people throughout the country can we hope to pass through the difficult times that lie ahead of us.
And what is the prospect for the coming year? My hon. friend has estimated a revenue of $135,000,000 from customs against $165,000,000 a year ago, a decrease of $30,000,000. But what are the facts as far as the months of March and April are concerned? The month of March, it is true, was in the last fiscal year, but it gives an indication of what we may expect in the few months that are immediately ahead of us. The customs revenue in March declined over $10,000,000 as against March a year ago and the customs revenue in April last declined over $7,000,000, as compared with April a year ago. There is $7,000,000 gone in one month of the $30,000,000 reduction which my hon. friend has provided for. And the same thing will apply to other sources of revenue. There is bound to be shrinkage in our income, and the Government has made absolutely no provision to meet it. They are going along making extravagant expenditure without any regard for the future; and I am afraid that when we come to the end of the present financial year, my hon. friend will have to come to this House with a deficit unless he can improve his book-keeping methods to a greater extent than he has done in the year that has gone past.
But there is one other criticism I wish to offer my hon. friend: He has made no provision whatever-indeed there is no reference whatever in the Budget speech to the matter-for the needs of the future immediately ahead of us. And what are


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend says
" hear, hear", and he is building ships as to which, before they are completed, he can write off two-thirds of their value and he will not have them over-valued then. When we protest against this and when we demand economy on the part of the Government, what do we get?


An hon. MEMBER:: The closure.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, we get a shrug of the shoulders, a cynical smile, and the closure.
My hon. friends opposite are just as careless in the little things as they are in the big things. We had an illustration of that the other evening in this House when my hon. friend the Minister of Railways was dealing with his Estimates, and asking for an increase for rqad supervision by a road department that did not exist in the Department of Railways until a year or two ago. For that department $25,000 was asked a year ago, and $55,000 is required this year, and there is no more need for it than there is for the Minister of Marine to have a battleship. The whole Budget is discouraging. And Sir, it is largely misleading; it is not giving the facts to the country as they should be given. What do the members of the Government have to say in connection with it? The Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he spoke, did not offer to' make any defence of if whatever. When the Minister of Marine spoke, he extolled the virtues of protection, and he told how they were going to win elections in the province of Quebec-that is what largely concerns the Minister of Marine. Then the Minister of Militia spent an hour and a quarter the other day endeavouring to convince the House and the country that Canada is not nearly so war-like as many other

nations in the world, notwithstanding- the fact that the Permanent Fopce to-day is almost 1,500 greater strength than it was the year before the war. And then we had the Prime Minister; I must not forget him. He came to the defence of the Government. What had the country a right to expect from my right hon. friend at this time? It had the right to expect some definite lead, some note of encouragement, some declaration as to the need of public and private economy. It should have had a high sounding note from my right hon. friend. But what did the country get? Well, Sir, we got an exhibition of cheap political vaudeville for over two hours and a half.
Talk about inconsistency! My right hon. friend throws his taunts around very freely and very lightly, and he was good enough to direct some particular attention to the hon. gentlemen "who sit angularly opposite" as he describes them. First of all he said that hon. gentlemen "angularly-opposite"-that is, the Progressives-and the Liberals are in the same boat; the next moment he said that one is protectionist and the other is free trade; and then he described us as "servile tools and minions, a dilapidated annex" of my hon. friends who sit to my right. Finally he completely reversed his position and wound up with the assertion that the Government and those who sit behind him were more low tariff than any other party in the country. A more amazing mass of inconsistencies could scarcely be imagined. And he concluded with this pious declaration, "Let this game cease. It is not doing any credit to the politics of Canada."
Was my right hon. friend doing any credit to the politics of Canada while he . was endeavouring during the past six or seven months to annex a number of hon. gentlemen of the Liberal Opposition who sit on this side of the chamber? My right hon. friend is anxious to get representation in the province of Quebec; I do not blame him for that. But let me ask him and this House in all sincerity: Have the methods which he has followed been any credit to the political life of this country? Perhaps he took his inspiration from my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) and my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Hocken). Both those hon. gentlemen are supposed to have a peculiar liking for the province of Quebec.
Servile tools and minions! Where was my right bon. friend in 1911 and the party that he thm gave adherence to? In that
year he and his party made an arrangement with the Nationalists of Quebec. Not only that but he and his party financed the Nationalists, their allies. The question of reciprocity was not an issue in Quebec. On what did his allies, whom he and his party financed at that time, make their appeal? Scarcely on grounds that would commend themselves to my hon. friends from Frontenac and West Toronto. It was an attack on the Empire. But my right hon. friend was not backward in seeking the assistance of those who then were willing to "shoot holes in the British flag." It does not lie in his mouth to lecture any one in this House upon political morality.
But let us go a step further. My right hon. friend describes us as a "dilapidated annex of the Liberal party, servile tools and minions." .Were those who sit, as he says, angularly opposite, "servile tools and minions" in 1917, when at their country's call, be their judgment right or wrong, they assisted my right hon. friend and his Government when it was on the brink of ruin and in despair? I should like to know if my right hon. friend considers we were "servile tools and minions" at that time. Let my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) answer. He knows better. And what about the "dilapidated annex"-where has if been? Where was the "dilapidated annex" in Assiniboia two years ago?


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer) :: Where was
the Government?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: And where was the Government? Why, the Government was under the barn.


An hon. MEMBER:: And is still there.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We at this corner of
the chamber stand for definite principles, and we are not afraid to fight for those principles. In Assiniboia we fought one of the leaders of Liberalism in Western Canada, but my right hon. friend's Government was not represented in that election. And where were we in East Elgin-another "dilapidated annex"? My right hon. friend had a candidate in that constituency and appeared twice in his support, but where was his candidate when election day was over? Then we had the "dilapidated annex" operating again in West Peterborough. I will admit that it was not quite as successful there, but my right hon. friend did not get much comfort out of that election. And what about Timiskaming, where the "dilap-

idated annex" was again in operation? And what about our record and our votes in this House? My right hon. friend knows that he has no right to hurl that epithet across the floor.
He taunts us with not having moved our platform in this House, but he knows very well why it has not been moved. Two years ago when we sought to introduce an amendment to the amendment on the Budget we could not do so.	My
right hon. friend knows that my hon. friends to the right of me have first claim to speak in the Budget debate. We could not move our amendment two years ago, and my right hon. friend was mighty glad that we could not. At that time he had just gathered a few wavering converts into the fold permanently-my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Henders), my hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Lang) and several other hon. gentlemen from Western Canada.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: They will never come back.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My right hon. friend
did not want our amendment to the amendment moved upon that occasion, for he thought his new converts might be frightened. Then he says, "But why did you not move it on going into Supply?" Does not my right hon. friend recall that two years ago last March my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) moved a tariff amendment on going into Supply? And does he not recall the position the Government took, at that time? I was then supposed to be among the faithful, and I spoke in that debate, my right hon. friend, I think also spoke, at any rate the leader of the Government of that day did; and the position every hon. gentleman on the other side took was that the amendment should be voted down, on the ground that the Budget debate was the place to discuss tariff matters in this House.
I can quite conceive of the pleasure it would give my right hon. friend to have us move an amendment on the tariff when going into Committee of Supply. Immediately he would get up and remind us of the speeches we had made on a former occasion that such an amendment should not be moved, and he would appeal to the loyalty of his supporters to vote our amendment down on the ground that the proper time to move it was when the Budget debate took place.
Now, why is all this suggested now? Why did my right hon. friend make that re-

markable speech the other day? I think he expected it might have some effect on a by-election which is now being contested down in the Maritime Provinces. He knows that his chances in that constituency are very slim indeed, but he hoped that he could influence a number of the electors there who have hitherto given support to him and to his policies to vote against the farmer candidate. On what platform is his candidate running in York-Sunbury at the present time? Does the tariff take a leading place in the discussion? Not according to the best information I get. My right hon. friend's candidate is running on a new -no, I will not say an altogether new, platform; it is an old platform of some of my hon. friends opposite. His candidate is saying privately to the Protestants of the constituency: I do not want any Catholic support; are you going to vote for the man whom the Catholics are voting for?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The hon. gentleman
has made a very serious assertion. He will be good enough to support that assertion by quotation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have no doubt that my right hon. friend can get witnesses to prove it.


Arthur Meighen: I never heard it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I accept at once my right hon. friend's statement; but I am stating what his candidate is saying down in York-Sunbury. And did not my right hon. friend within the past eight months, through his agents, approach the Catholic Minister of Public Works in New Brunswick with a view to having him come into his Government? Did he get that inspiration from my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) ?


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman repeat that statement, please? I did not quite catch it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, I will repeat the
statement: did not my right hon. friend or some one representing him approach-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: Somebody told somebody else.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Did not my right hon.
friend or some of the members of his Government-I will put it that definitely- approach the Minister of Public Works in

New Brunswick with a view of having him come into the Administration?


Arthur Meighen: :	I want to state that
that is absolutely false so far as I am concerned or so far as any one is concerned acting upon my authority.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I at once, Mr. Speaker,
again take my right hon. friend's word for it.


Arthur Meighen: I may tell my hon.
friend as well that his previous assertion is denied categorically by the candidate and by every one in the county from whom I have heard.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: After all, my right hon. friend did attempt one or two arguments in his speech the other day. He attempted t,o make an argument on the binder twine industry. I believe he quoted from Mr. Lambert, now secretary of the Council of Agriculture. Now, Mr. Lambert, it is true, wrote the article that my right hon. friend quoted, hut that article was written in 1911 during the reciprocity campaign, and when Mr. Lambert was a student fresh from the university and doing literary work of a general character. That was simply a youthful effusion on the part of Mr. Lambert, but my right hon. friend attempts to build a substantial argument upon it. And then he goes on and talks about the binder twine industry, pointing out that twenty-five years ago we had 25 binder twine factories in Canada and now we have only 3. Well, does that prove anything particularly? It is true there was a decline in the number of binder twine factories in Canada, but what about other industries? Take the great agricultural implement industry; in 1881, according to the census figures, there were 234 factories in Canada manufacturing agricultural implements; in 1917 there were 90. Is that what protection has done for the agricultural implement industry in this country? And if my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) wants some further information, I have it. Take boots and shoes: in 1881, according to the census figures, there were over 4,000 establishments in Canada making boots and shoes; in 1917 there were 185. And take the matter of woollen goods: in 1881 there were 1,994 factories in Canada manufacturing woollen goods; in 1917 there were 80. In 1881 these factories gave employment, according to the census figures, to over 18,000 people; in 1917 they gave employment to
a little over 5,000 people. Is that what protection has done to these industries? When my right hon. friend argues, therefore, that the decline in the binder twine industry in Canada was due to the fact that it had no protection, he cannot offer substantial proof of his statement. But take the case of the Brantford Cordage Company, engaged in the binder twine industry: twenty years ago it had only 60 spindles operating; to-day it has over 700 spindles operating, and its output is over 10,000 tons of binder twine annually. My right hon. friend states that the industry was bonused. Well, has it been bonused? It has not had protection or assistance of any kind for ten years, and in the face of that it is expanding and developing.
My right hon. friend spoke also aboui. the cream separator industry, and he played upon what he referred to as our "working the cream separator all over the country." But, while he may pass these clever remarks across the House he cannot get away from the fact that the cream separator industry in Canada, without protection, has developed and prospered. If the Renfrew Machinery Company can make cream separators and build up their business and expand it as they are expanding it in practically every country where cream separators are used, why cannot my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) makes his ploughs in the same way? The same elements precisely enter into the manufacture of the plough which enter into the manufacture of the cream separator.
After all, what was there in the speech that was delivered by my right hon. friend? I have said that there was no lead to the country; there was no discussion of the grave problems which face us; it was as barren as the frozen wastes of the Arctic regions so far as constructive statesmanship was concerned. And my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Cowan), who, I am sorry to see, is not in the chamber, went one better; he applied the terms "duplicity" and "deception" to those who sit in this corner of the chamber-my hon. friend from Regina, who forgets to-day what he said yesterday and will repudiate to-morrow what he said to-day.
We come now to a consideration of the tariff proposals. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance has stated that it is not the intention to have any tariff revision. But is that the case? I will not go over the history of the Government's jockeying with the tariff question or

discuss the position that was taken by the Government two years ago. We know then that the expectation was held out to the country, and particularly to some of my western friends, who are sitting with hon. gentlemen opposite, that this tariff revision would take place, and that we would have a tariff with moderate protection; that we would have a tariff behind the walls of which industry would not be allowed to shelter in ease. Then we had the Tariff Commission journeying throughout this country, and later we had the announcement in the Speech from the Throne, a few months ago, that a measure based upon the Tariff Commission's findings would be brought down to this House. But now the Government comes down with the announcement that there is to be no tariff increase. Is that the case, however? This Budget increases the tariff; in its spirit and essence,it is the most protectionist Budget that has been delivered in this House in twenty years. Not only are duties left at the old levels, but new constructions, new interpretations are introduced in the Customs Act, and we find, for instance, as the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) pointed out, that as regards countries in which there is a depreciated currency, 50 per cent of the value of that currency will be taken for purposes of assessing the duty. On the other hand, we find this condition directed against trade with the United States, that the duty is to be levied on the premium in exchange between the United States and Canada. Further, we have the proposal-I do not know what particular merit there may be in it-that all goods coming to Canada must be marked with the name of the country of origin. That may be a perfectly proper measure to take, but it is quite obvious that it simply places another obstacle in the way of those engaged in trade.
At the present time, the Canadian manufacturer has against the United States manufacturer the protection of the adverse exchange. As regards woollens, which carry a duty, I think, of 30 per cent, what is the actual protection that the Canadian woollen manufacturer enjoys to-day by virtue of trade conditions and the acts of this ' Government? He has his 30 per cent duty; he has 12 per cent discount on his dollar in the United States, which discount acts as a protection to him; he has the rate of duty on that, and he has the import tax levied by virtue of the sales tax which the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton)
fMr. Crerar.]
has increased. Altogether the protection that the Canadian woollen manufacturer enjoys to-day is over 40 per cent as against the United States.


Mr. LALOR:: What is the duty on the same class of goods going into the United States?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am sorry that at the moment I cannot give my hon. friend that information, but I will take boots and shoes-	[DOT]


Francis Ramsey Lalor: The duty, my dear fellow, is from 30 to 40 per cent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I much appreciate the
endearing remarks of my hon. friend opposite, but I will cite another instance. Boots and shoes have a protection of 30 per cent in Canada. The same thing applies equally to them, and I will tell my hon. friend that boots and shoes go into the United States free of duty.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Certainly.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: 
Mr. CURRIE:: What about the manufacturers?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend need not
worry; I will have the figures for him in a moment. What about the products of the forest?
Wood products, manufactured
and unmanufactured.. .. $115,000,000
Wood pulp	 71,500,000
Printing paper	 79,000,000
Other paper	  13,000,000
That makes a total of $278,500,000 worth of exports directly from our forests. These are the great natural resources of the country. Let me give the same information as regards minerals:
Asbestos	 $12,600,000
Copper	 13,300,000
Nickel	 9,400,000
Silver	 11,100,000
Coal	 16,500,000
That makes a total from our mines of $62,900,000.
Then we have our fisheries, $33,000,000, and furs, $12,200,000. If we total these altogether, we find that we have $945,600,000 worth of exports based on the natural resources of this country as against a total export amounting to
$1,190,000,000. My hon. friend from Simcoe North (Mr. Currie) asked a moment ago: What about manufactures? I will tell him. On textiles, we have had a protective duty of over 30 per cent-yes, going as high at times as 40 per cent during the last forty years. What was the magnificent total contribution that our textile industry, that we have been protecting for forty years in this country, made to the exports of Canada? It was $12,350,000 last year.
-What about rubber goods? They have a protection running over 30 per cent, ahd they have been protected for forty years. They added to our total export trade last year by $10,800,000.
And what about clothing?-clothing that every person in this country, high or low, must have, and a great deal of it, because of the rigours of our climate. We have protected clothing in order to develop a clothing manufacturing industry in this country; and after forty years of protection what did it contribute to the sum total of our export trade last year? Only $8,500,000. These figures prove beyond any question of dispute where the real wealth in this country lies. I say again now what I have said before in this House, that it is the height of economic folly for this country to place these high tariff duties in favour of industries that are not based on the natural resources of Canada.
What protection has the farmer got? What protection has the lumberman got? What protection has the fisherman got? None at all. What value is a protective tariff to the Canadian farmer? My hon. friend the Minister of Finance has spoken about the home market, and that has been dealt with by my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark). I want to point out that we are exporting hundreds of millions of dollars worth of produce from our farms more than we can possibly consume in Canada. Is it not therefore the part of wisdom so to shape the fiscal policy of this country as to give encouragement to industries, like agriculture, to the production of our forest wealth, our mineral wealth, and of the wealth from our seas? That is the sound, sane policy for this country to follow, and I am convinced that before very long this country is going to adopt that policy.
Another defect of a protective tariff is this: I submit that protection, with all its increases, and they have been great, simply facilitates the formation of com-[DOT] bines and mergers in this country. I know that some of my friends opposite may differ with me, but I believe that that is the

inevitable result of the system. One of the crying evils that this country has suffered from in the last twenty years has been the exploitation of the Canadian people by stock watering and stock promoting in practically every industry in Canada. Let me give the House a few illustrations-and I could multiply these by a score if it were necessary.
Take the boot and shoe business-an article of vital necessity to the whole Canadian people, because even if we were disposed to do so, the rigours of our climate would not permit us to go barefooted or lightly shod. We find that in 1911 there was a merger of shoe manufacturing concerns in Canada. In that year the Ames-Holden-McCready Company, Limited, was formed, absorbing Ames-Holden, Limited, and the James McCready Company, Limited. The capital issues of these two concerns-capital stock and bonds- amounted to $3,500,000. That was their actual worth as disclosed by their bonds and capital stock. What was that turned into? $3,500,000 of common stock, $2,500,000 of preferred stock, and $1,000,000 of bonds, or a total issue of $7,000,000. One cannot speak with definite knowledge, because one has not access to the records of this company, but I believe that I am not beyond the mark when I make the statement that practically every dollar of that common stock was water. What has been the result? Boots and shoes that y.ou and I, Mr. Speaker, and every one else in this country wear have enioyed a tariff protection of 30 per cent. Where has the value of the common stock of the Ames-Holden-McCready Company gone? In 1920 it sold as high as $137 a share. Is that protecting industry, or is it, as I stated in this House on one occasion before, protecting exploitation of the people?
Take another article which is very commonly used in this country-glass. In 1913 the Dominion Glass Company was formed. What did it embrace? We find that it absorbed the Diamond Glass Company, with $1,000,000 of securities, capital stock and bonds; the Sydenham Glass Company with $300,000, and the Canadian Glass Company with $100,000, or a total capitalization-capital and bonds-of $1,400,000. What happened when the merger was formed? What happened under the alchemy of the stock promoter's wand? The new company that was formed was capitalized as follows:	common stock,
$4,250,000; preferred stock, $2,600,000; bonds, $2,000,000; or a total of $8,850,000. You will say that that common stock had

no value. True, it had no value, then. There was even an inflated value given to the bonds and preferred stock, according to the statement. But what has since happened to the common stock? Under a protection of 32i per cent this company has gone on making its glass bottles, glass jars and other glass products, until the common stock in 1920 sold as high as $69.25 a share. I ask again, is that protecting a legitimate industry in Canada, or is it enabling these promoters, through this protective tariff, to exploit the Canadian people?
I am sorry the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) is going out because the next example I was going to give was the Sherwin-Williams Paint Company of Canada, Limited. This company according to the records was incorporated in 1911.


Mr. PARENT:: With all kinds of colours.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It absorbed the Sherwin-Williams Company, Limited, with $1,000,000 of capital stock and bonds; Lewis Berger and Sons, with $750,000, and the Canadian Paint Company with $750,000, or a total of $2,500,000 of bonds and stock. Under the alchemy of the promoter's wand this was converted into $9,450,000, as follows; $4,000,000 of common stock, $3,000,000 of preferred stock, and $2,450,000 of bonds.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Lots of water in the paint.	i


Thomas Alexander Crerar: This industry has enjoyed a protection of 30 per cent, or better, ever since we have had a protective tariff. What has happened to its common stock? Last year the common stock of the Sherwin-Williams Paint Company sold as high as $119, according to the stock quotations in the financial journals of this country. Was there actual value put into this stock?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The company was formed in 1911. Will my hon. friend be good enough to tell the House what the stock sold for without any dividend at all? The dividend has only been paid this last year?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The common stock in
1911 was worth nothing.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I a'Sked my hon. friend what the stock was selling for, not for his opinion as to what it was worth.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In 1911 it sold as low as 29.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: ' And in 1920?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It sold as high as $119, and sold down again to $75. I want to do full justice to my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. There is $4,000,000 of common stock, which in 1911 sold at less than $30 a share; the lowest point the stock touched last year was $75 a share, and all the time there has been a protective tariff on paint coming into this country of over 30 per cent.
I have been represented as being opposed to industries in this country. I am not opposed to industries in Canada. I should like to see industries developed in Canada, but I am opposed, as I trust I shall ever be, to a system of protection that permits this sort of thing and exploits the great masses of the Canadian people in order that a few individuals may enrich themselves.
Now, Sir, the effect of these taxes which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has imposed is to increase the cost of living in this country; they can have no Other effect. I have shown, as my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) and other hon. gentlemen who have preceded me have shown, that -the purpose of these taxes is to increase the tariff. The operation of the sales tax will also bear heavily upon the poor man. My hon. friend from Red Deer stated the thing in a nutshell in his argument the other day, and so far there has not been an hon. gentleman opposite who has attempted to reply to the argument which my hon. friend advanced. As the hon. member for Red Deer said, the operation of these taxes will raise the prices of commodities in the country. If it raises the prices of commodities it limits and decreases the consumption of them. If it limits and decreases consumption it decreases production, and if it decreases production it brings stagnation to business and unemployment to labour.
That is the inevitable effect of the operation of these taxes. My hon. friend from Red Deer pointed it our clearly, and so far he has not been answered by any hon. gentleman who has attempted to discuss the matter on the other side of the chamber. Furthermore, these taxes are not levied according to the ability of the citizen to pay. Now, I have every sympathy with the position in which the Minister of Finance finds himself, because it is extremely difficult to get the revenues which this country requires in the days we are passing through. But the minister, through the operation of the sales tax, is increasing the cost of living to every person in the country. What about the wealthy man who spends six months in California or Florida, or Europe? He has not to pay taxes on purchases when he is away. But the poor man with the limited income,-he may be out of work, without any income at all, just living on the slender resources he may have accumulated in the past-finds himself in an altogether different situation. What position is he in? and what position is the returned soldier in? This tax will hit them every day in the year; they cannot escape from it; and to that extent my hon. friend has been very unwise in the taxes he is imposing.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I should like to
ask my hon. friend whether he and his party are still in favour of increasing the British preference to 50 per cent and, after five years, of having absolutely free trade.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: 

in the same ratio to population. I hope the fear is unwarranted, hut I am afraid that my hon. friend, when the year comes to a close, will find that his revenues have not come up to his anticipations. I would urge again upon him and upon the Gevern-ment the great need of .laying down some definite financial policy. I know that the matter of taxes is a difficult one; no one likes to pay taxes. But we must have the revenues that- are required to pay the interest on our debt, to meet the charges for returned soldiers, to pay pensions, maintenance, etc., and to provide for all the other services which are necessary in the public welfare. But we should aim to raise these taxes where they will bear as lightly as possible upon the great mass of the common people of the country, and in that respect I would offer one or two suggestions to the Minister of Finance. I have not very much hope that he will accept them, but nevertheless I proffer them. I think that the income tax might very well have been extended. A man with an income of $20,000 in Canada to-day pays a tax of some $1,500 or $1,600, as compared with a similar tax on a similar income in Great Britain of almost $6,000. It is true that on the larger incomes, running up to $100,000, $150,000 and $200,000, our tax in Canada is heavier than in Great Britain. But I think the range of income might have been extended. I think also that my hon. friend might have somewhat increased the income tax on corporations. He has abolished the business profits tax, and in that respect he has acted wisely. But it does seem to me that the income tax on corporations might have been somewhat, possibly, considerably extended. And then there is another source of revenue that may not be very well understood in the House, although it is one which I think the Government might well consider when it is looking for money with which to carry on public affairs. My hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) last evening referred to the possibility of raising revenue by a tax on the values of land. The hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne) referred to this subject in his speech the other day, but he spoke of the tax as a land tax, and I desire to draw the distinction clearly between a land tax and a tax on the unimproved values of land, which is a totally different thing from a flat tax on land. How does this tax on the unimproved values of land operate? Let me illustrate it. I know of a case, which has come under my observation, where a certain gentleman in one of the cities of Canada owns an apartment block. He has 
alongside it a vacant lot. He derives his income mainly from the revenues he receives from the dwellings and buildings he rents. He spends very little of his time in Canada, but his agent comes around every month to collect the rents. The vacant lot he holds is increasing in value every year by virtue of the fact that the people around are busy working and carrying on all the activities of a civilized community. What does this gentleman hope to do? What has he done in countless cases in the past? He has reaped the advantage of the increase in value, but he gets off with a very slight, a nominal tax on the land he has held out of use. Now, this tax on the unimproved values of land would have the effect of bringing such land as this into use. It would take for the state simply the increment that comes to the land as a result of the activities of the people living in the community and would be no injustice to anyone; and it would lessen the burden on the poor individual-the workingman, the clerk in the store, the clerk in the law office-who has to pay, in many of our Canadian cities, exorbitant rents in order to get a place in which to live. That is the effect of this. I would suggest to my right hon. friend that this avenue of taxation might well be inquired into. I know that, particularly, in the western provinces, this principle has been applied by the Provincial Governments, and it may be that that field of taxation should be left to them, but it is worth seriously enquiring into. In that connection I have another suggestion to make to my hon. friend and it is this-it mighf be well to-day to have a conference, not only with the provinces but with representatives from some of our larger cities, with a view of reaching some definite understanding as to the relative fields of taxation in Canada.
Now, Sir, I have taken more time than I intended.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Our trade is shrinking, it is shrinking seriously. The effect of the United States tariff legislation has already been alluded bo, and I cannot help but regret the action of my hon. friends opposite when they rejected the reciprocity arrangement of 1911. We have had for several years past one of the best markets for our natural products in the United States. I do not know that we can complain of tfie action they are taking in that country, but I would offer this suggestion to the Minister of Trade and Commerce-

that he might very well say to our friends at Washington " Let us talk this matter over." Let him tell them frankly that we are ready to trade with them on the basis of the 1911 arrangement. That arrangement still stands on their statute books, and it may be that they would yet accept it; and if my hon. friend will do that he will render to Canada one of the best services he has ever given to it in his long and distinguished career.
But I want to point out to my manufacturing friends what the effect is going to be of a restricted market for our agricultural products. We sold last year almost $160,000,000 of agricultural products ,in the United States, and we know the condition that the European markets are in in this respect. Therefore I say to my manufacturing friends, " Where are you going to sell your goods if the Canadian farmer is not prosperous?" It is one of. the unfortunate facts-perhaps it was unavoidable-of a protective tariff that our manufacturing industries have not extended their markets in the world. I have proven that by the figures I quoted to the House. We are at the present time having a decline in the values of farm products. Why, Sir, in the past year alone the value of live animals in Canada has decreased over $350,000,000. The farmers are selling oats for 19 cents a bushel and hides for one cent a pound, as my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) pointed out, and paying $10 and $12 a pair for shoes. You cannot have prosperity in a country under those conditions; and if my manufacturing friends desire to extend their business it should be of the first and greatest concern to them that the farmers of this country are prosperous and remain prosperous.
I would offer this suggestion to the Government also, and to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance with whom I sympathize in his many troubles and tribulations; that we should have a policy of rigid economy absolutely; rigid economy first, last and all the time; rigid economy for five years at any rate until we have refunded our maturing obligations, until we have passed through this period of depression that we are in now and of which we have not yet reached the bottom. Under such circumstances only economy of the most rigid kind can satisfy the demands and needs of the hour.
Then I would offer another suggestion- that we could dispense with expenditures of a local character. Very often in this House we are called upon to vote moneys
221J
for purely local purposes. That is not sound business nor is it sound policy. Local needs should be cared for by local taxation, and that matter is one that could well engage the attention of the Government.
I think also-as I suggested a moment ago-that the Minister of Finance might well call into consultation the treasurers of the various provinces and the treasurers of our large cities-follow the practice that was adopted early in the war when the late Minister of Finance laid down certain restrictions with respect to the sale of securities, and when there was an effort made to unify and co-ordinate the financial policy of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific. My hon. friend should do that and he should do it without delay, because the burden of taxation upon the people is growing every day and their ability to pay is growing less every day.
I would offer another suggestion to the Government: They might very well discontinue the expenditure on roads and on the housing problem that we have been engaging in for the last few years. That was undertaken at a time when there was apparently a growing need in the country for such purposes, but I submit again that that is expenditure that should be cared for by the provinces or by the municipalities interested. After all, the burdens of the municipalities in Canada and the burdens of the provinces are infinitely less, financially, than are the burdens on the Federal Treasury.
I am not very sanguine that my suggestions will be taken by the Government, but I repeat that our situation is serious- if I cannot impress that upon the Government I hope I may, in some degree, impress it upon the country. The people of Canada to-day-on information given * me a short time ago by a gentleman who I think is usually careful in his estimates- are paying in taxes for federal, provincial [DOT]and municipal purposes over one thousand million dollars a year, and we are paying, to meet our obligations abroad, almost $250,000,000 a year. That burden is a very heavy burden.
Sir, the Government should give some lead to the country. But do we get any lead from the Government either in economy or any other direction at the present time? So far we have not had it. My hon. friends apposite-and I do not wish to do any injustice to them; I think I will be given credit by most hon. gentlemen in this House for fairness-it does seem to me that my hon. friends opposite

are mainly concerned with their political success rather than with the pressing needs of the country at this time, and such a policy can bring no useful result to the Canadian people. There is no doubt, Sir, that our difficulties are great, our problems are serious. I would like to see the Prime Minister-and I do not wish him any ill- I would like to see him, and I would like to see this Government, give a definite lead to the country at the present time, give a definite lead in economy, place frankly before the country the difficulties and the serious nature of the problems that lie immediately ahead of us; and I have faith and confidence in the Canadian people that they will rally to the support of any Government that attempts to meet the necessities of the hour as they should be met. But, Sir, when we look at the Treasury Benches of to-day, when we analyse and study the policy of the Government, when we see the motives that animate it in its public administration of this country's affairs, it offers but little hope for the future. We can only get relief from this condition of affairs when we have had an election, and when the country has had an opportunity to pronounce upon these problems and to elect representatives to this Parliament who will give the Government of this country the efficiency, the vigour, and the courage that it calls for at the present time.


Mr. WILLIAM FOSTER COCKSHUTT (Brantford) :: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. MEMBER:: Six o'clock.


William Foster Cockshutt: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is quite six o'clock. I think I will be able to give the hon. gentleman who made that interjection a few facts before six o'clock is reached.
Before entering upon a reply to my hon. friend who has just taken his seat I wish to make one or two remarks with regard to the Budget that has been brought down. I hope that my hon. friend from Marquette, to whom I have listened very patiently, will be on hand when I have to address certain remarks to himself in reply to certain references he has made with regard to the manufacturers. I just throw that out as a hint to my hon. friend, who is now leaving the chamber, in order that he may kindly return if possible. The Budget, as prepared and presented by the Minister of Finance, I consider is upon the whole one of the best and most pleasing that Canada has had in many years. That may be considered

quite a statement for me to make, but we must remember that we are living in very extraordinary times, and therefore we have to fit our views to suit the situation in which we find ourselves placed. That the Minister of Finance should be able to show that we have taken care of all our ordinary expenditure and have a surplus at our command of about $70,000,000 is, I think, an achievement in these days that very few countries can show. The Minister of Finance and I have not seen eye to eye upon every matter of taxation, and it is not to be supposed that we would always agree on such matters. Taxation is never pleasant, and it touches a man in a very sensitive part of his constitution; therefore we must make allowances when we feel that we are taxed severely, knowing that the needs of the treasury are great and must be met regardless of who may be touched and what interests may be affected. I am free to say that I, for one, have felt the taxation very severely. Probably some of my hon. friends opposite will say I did not show it, and I tried not to. I must say, however, that I have been taxed during the past two years in a way that I never expected to live to see; and while my hon. friend from Marquette shouts for more income tax, I do not know where he expects to get very much more than is being collected to-day. I say it, and with some knowledge of the facts, Mr. Speaker, that we have been taxed already to a degree that is affecting our commercial affairs in a very serious way. There is not a bit of doubt about that. All the money that is taken from the pockets of the manufacturer, the merchant or the tradesman is diverted from its ordinary avocation of building up and extending industries, of maintaining those that are here, and of seeing that the workmen are employed. Whenever the money is diverted from the pockets of those who think that they have made it honestly and is put into the Treasury, that money for the time being, is withdrawn from all productive effort; that has been the case to a very large extent in Canada; and I trust that as soon as the Minister of Finance is able to reduce that taxation he will do so. In the meantime we must pay it with the best grace possible, and I for one am endeavouring to do that.
The business profits tax, I am thankful to know, is gone. Probably it was more damaging and dangerous to industry than is the income tax, because the money thus

collected was primarily intended for extensions of factories, for the implanting of new industries, and for all that variety of enterprises to which spare capital can he devoted.
The railway situation, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Marquette, is very serious for the country, and has called for a large portion of our revenue to go into channels for which it was not intended.
And now having made these very brief references to the Budget as a whole, I purpose in the brief time at my disposal to devote considerable attention to the august aggregation of Agrarians sitting across the chamber. I regret that in spite of my reference to 'the hon. member for Marquette he has withdrawn. His speech, as I understand it, was a political speech from start to finish. It was such a speech as probably he has been delivering in New Brunswick recently. It is evidently intended for campaign purposes. The part of his speech that was not devoted to denouncing industry because it was unsuccessful was devoted to opposing those who have made money out of manufacturing. So whether manufacturing was a failure or a success it was just as heartily cursed by the hon. member for Marquette.
I cannot conceive what has imbued apparently so fair-minded a man as the hon. gentleman who leads the Agrarian party to take such a hostile attitude towards all those who are engaged in the industries of this country. He is not attacking merely the few at the head of our industries, he is attacking the bread and butter of every workingman in Canada; and if he succeeds in destroying the industries of this country, as he is evidently bent upon, he is going to throw out of work tens of thousands of workmen from coast to coast. Anybody can see that; everybody knows it. If it were only the three or four or five thousand manufacturers who get the advantage of the protective tariff I would say at once: The number of them does not justify the tariff; take it off. But when you speak of a factory you not only speak of the men at the head of it, of the board of directors, and of the shareholders, but you speak of every man who is at the bench and getting his daily bread by honest toil. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the production of the factory in honest goods is entitled to just as fair consideration, and no fairer, as the production of the field-a statement that cannot be successfully contradicted by any man in this House or outside of it. The honest
toil of the workman that goes into the manufactured product and is sold in the markets of the world or in the home market is just as worthy as the toil that goes into the production of a bushel of wheat or oats or a pound of butter. I stand for both. I have always advocated the policy of helping the farm as well as the factory, and I must say that the feeling evinced by our friends in the West is not at all the same as that which prevails in my county. We have cordial co-operation there between the farmers and the manufacturers. Many of the former quit their farms in the winter time and come and work in our factories, leaving a boy, and in some cases a woman to do the chores, thus allowing the man to earn money during the winter season. That is done throughout Ontario in scores of our cities and towns; and surely that is an advantage that should not be forgotten by the farmer himself. Then take the home market. In the city of Brantford alone we consume more of certain lines of farm products than are grown in the county of Brant. Is that no advantage to the farmer? My hon. friend from Marquette bemoans that we cannot send more agricultural products to the markets of the world. He neglected throughout his entire speech to show, as he very well could, that upwards of seventy-five per cent of the agricultural products of Canada are consumed at home. Is that not worth while? Are you going to sacrifice three-quarters of your market for the sake of a doubtful one-quarter in foreign countries? And still that is the policy proposed by the hon. member for Marquette. He has got another guess coming before he is a statesman big enough to govern a country like Canada, if the speech we have heard this afternoon is to be taken as a measure of his statesmanship. He has shown no breadth of vision. He denounced manufacturing and all those engaged in it; apparently he has no good word for anybody not engaged in agriculture. I do not know that he himself follows agriculture very much. Perhaps he does, but I must say he does not look as though he had been working at it lately.
I stand just as four-square for agriculture and the farmer as for manufacturing and the manufacturer. I have shown that in this House on previous occasions, and there have been times in my political career when I have taken off my coat and helped farmer candidates in my own riding. Although three-quarters of the voters lived in the city, we nominated the farmer and got behind him and did our best to elect him.

I will do that again on any occasion when a farmer runs as a citizen. I say he should run as a citizen of Canada, not as a farmer; we shall never get anywhere by class legislation. The workingman is entitled to a seat in this House. I say, all honour to the workingman who can be elected, and where a workingman will run in one of our towns or cities I am prepared to support him if he runs as a citizen of Canada and not as a nominee of Labour. If a manufacturer runs as nominated by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and is backed only by that organization When he is put into the field, I will absolutely refuse to aid him in any way no matter what his views are. A,m I not consistent? I have never been put in the field by the manufacturers. I have never sought anything from the Manufacturers' Association; I have never been a member of it and do not suppose I ever will be. Any nominations I have ever had have come more from the workingmen than any one else, and I have had the farmers' support as well; in fact, I received more support from that direction In the last election than I did on any previous occasion. I mentiqn this, Mr. Speaker, only to show that I am prepared in all respects to see that our farmer and rural population get their fair representation in this House. As a result of the elections in 1917, if I remember rightly, we had fifty farmers sitting on this side, all elected not as farmers but as citizens of Canada. Are they not farmers still? Are they not good men upon the land? Are they any less men and citizens of Canada because they did not run particularly in the Agrarian interests? I cannot see it, Mr. Speaker. I say, all honour to these men who have been elected in that way as citizens of Canada, who have taken a broad view of the country's affairs, and who have been of the opinion that this country is too large and too varied in its character to be run in any one particular groove. It seems to me, Sir, that that is sound policy.
The member for Marquette uttered a wail of woe with regard to what the manufacturers have done and are doing. But I do not think he can show that the manufacturers have been unduly grasping, or that they have not been managing their businesses fairly well. I read in a pamphlet containing facts with regard to Canada, just issued)-1921-on the second pagfe, that Canada's agricultural wealth in 1919 was estimated at $7,379,299,000, made up as follows:	agricultural production,
(Mr. Cockshutt.]
$1,975,841,000; value of farm land, $2,792,299,000; buildings, $927,548,000; implements, $387,079,000; farm five stock, $1,296,602,000. You will note that the agricultural production was $1,975,841,000 in 1919. Now, let me draw the attention of my hon. friends opposite to what manufacturing did in the year previous to that, 1918-because for some reason or other the book is not as up-to-date in the matter of manufacturing as it is in its figures with regard to agriculture. I read from page 42, which gives figures of the industrial census. The capitalization of industries in 1915 was $1,994,103,272 and in 1918, three years later, it had risen to $3,034,301,915.


An hon. MEMBER:: Watered stock.


William Foster Cockshutt: Well, you may say watered stock, but we can produce the goods as well, as I will show you. The production of industries in 1915 was $1,407,138,140, and in 1918-and let my hon. friends make a note of it-it was $3,458,036,975, or upwards of fifty per cent more than the whole agricultural output of Canada. Does that show any progress?


Mr. MAHARG:: Munitions of war.


William Foster Cockshutt: We are not talking about munitions; we are talking about products, and there are the figures set forth in a disinterested book, taken from statistics. My hon. friend may twist them as he likes, but the facts are there, and he does not like them. This country is at least half industrial td'-day, and in spite of all the efforts of my agrarian friends they are never going to make Canada a purely agrarian country. Canada is not built on those fines.


Mr. WHITE:: Is the increase not accounted for by the large increase of prices of manufactured goods? Prices went up 100 per cent in the last five years.


William Foster Cockshutt: I admit that, but my hon. friend will also admit that the prices of agricultural products advanced as fast as, if not a little faster than, the prices of manufactured goods.


Richard Smeaton White: And they are going down a good deal faster than is the case with the agricultural implements.


William Foster Cockshutt: Well, we swallow
more of them, I suppose, in our daily round. My hon. friend cannot make any argument with regard to the prices of these articles. The years to which I have referred are both war years, and the prices of all these things were war prices. My

hon. friend is a farmer, and he will know that during the war when the manufacturer was denounced for his high prices the farmer could drive in to his neighbouring town or city in the west, and in exchange for the value of a load of produce of any kind take home more goods than he could ever have taken home in prewar days. That is a statement that cannot be refuted. Of course, I am speaking now of the war time, not of present conditions, because, as the hon. gentleman has pointed out, prices have dropped, and it may be that the agriculturist has suffered more than those engaged in some lines of industry. But if my hon. friends think that the making of goods is all "pie", I advise them to try it. There is the proof of the pudding. They are large sellers of all kinds of goods; I would advise them to try it. They have read some astounding figures with regard to the paint industry and other industries to show that money was being made too fast. The hon. gentleman also read a number of statistics in order to show that some of these industries were making money too slowly and were no good because they could not export to foreign countries. But I have shown, Mr. Speaker, that the industries of Canada produced in 1918 upwards of $3,000,000,000 worth of goods.


Mr. REID (Mackenzie) :: Will my hon. friend give the figures for 1920?


William Foster Cockshutt: I am sorry that I cannot do so; as I have said, the book gives the figures in respect to manufacturing only up to 1918 and of agriculture only up to 1919. Of course, the figures for 1920 are not yet available, in any case.


Mr. GOULD:: Is it not possible that in the figures my hon. friend has given, wheat which has been ground and manufactured into flour is counted in with total manufactures?


William Foster Cockshutt: This classification
is not mine; it is prepared by the authority who has prepared it annually in Toronto for many years, Mr. Frank Yeigh. I should say that what he called manufactured goods are manufactured goods, and it is not unlikely that some of them are the product of the farms. But the more we can manufacture in Canada of all these goods; the more we can send out in highly finished form, the more money we in Canada get for them. That is evident, I think, to all.
I noted the other evening the speech of my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson). Apparently he foreshadowed to some extent what we might expect from the leader of the Agrarian party. He made a very vicious attack upon manufacturers and their products. He denounced us as practically eating up the people, and as bQnused, I think he said, to the extent of five or six hundred million dollars-a hundred million dollars did not matter very much. All the same, I think I can show that we have given fairly good results for the money.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who, I understand, is chief whip of the Agrarian party, bemoaned very seriously the low price of hides, and I think that bemoaning of his has been echoed by several gentlemen in the Agrarian party. I was thinking of making this suggestion to the Agrarian party, that they take advantage of the low price of hides to lay in one or two new whips for the party. How would that be? I think the hon, member for Qu'Appelle saw that this was coming because he bemoaned the price of hides. Two or three good raw hides could be laid in very cheaply, and I am not sure that they would not have more effect than the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has upon the party at times, because I notice that he has not been able to hold them in subjection at all times during the present session.' Sometimes they voted on one side and sometimes on the other. I commend them for that, but that does not look like good whipping, does it? My hon. friend, when he bemoans all this, should realize that the manufacturers, as well as the farmers, have their troubles. I am not sure that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle is either a farmer or a lawyer. Sometimes, I think he applies legal knowledge to his farming, and sometimes I think he applies his farming knowledge to the. legal profession. He seems to he in a general state of mixture.


John Archibald Maharg: And a good one.


William Foster Cockshutt: It is a good one,
is it? There may be differences of opinion qs to that. I very much regret that the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) has not yet come back into the chamber. I got up largely to refute statements that have been made freely by the Agrarian party, not only in this Houses but on the platform throughout the country. I always try to have my statements as nearly as possible correct on the subject on which I am speaking. If I make a mistake, that

mistake has been made unintentionally and not by device. The hon. member for 1 Qu'Appelle the other night repeated a statement made in this House some six or eight weeks ago, when the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Guthrie) was giving to the House certain facts with regard to protection to industries, and particularly with regard to the implement business. The shout came back from across the way-and I think my few friends who remain in the chamber will recognize this -that the reason the United Farmer does not buy his implements in Canada, is because the manufacturer will not sell to him. I think my hon. friend recognizes this statement as having been made.


John Archibald Maharg: Certainly.


William Foster Cockshutt: The hon. member
for Qu'Appelle says that, inasmuch as this statement was not contradicted in the House, he takes it for granted that it is correct. Well, if every part of my hon. friend's speech that was not correct was contradicted, there would not be very much left. The reason why we did not contradict this at the time is because it is against the rules of this House to jump up and butt in on a speaker when he is making, no matter how ridiculous, a statement. The statement that he made is one that cannot be borne out by the facts.


John Flaws Reid: Does my hon.
friend deny, that the manufacturers of Canada refused to sell agricultural implements to the Grain Growers of the West when they first wanted to buy them?


William Foster Cockshutt: My hon. friend puts in "when they first wanted to buy them." This statement was made this week in the House, and it has been made several times during this session. I want to say a few words in regard to the matter. When the debate took place in this House about six weeks*ago, in which debate the Minister of Militia and Defence took part, the cry came back-and it was distinctly heard on this side

from several hon. members that the reason why the United Farmers did not buy their implements in Canada was because they could not buy them from Canadian manufacturers. That was a statement, not of the past, but of the present. I have had an opportunity, during the interval, to find out a little about that, and I say to the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Reid), who is an honourable man, that the statement is not correct. These gentlemen, as soon as they made the statement, set about to prove it, but a wise man would have proved the fact
[Mr. Cocksliutt.J
first and made the statement afterwards. That was not the case with the Agrarian party; they rushed in and then they tried to get the facts to back them up in what they hoped was so. It was only two or three days after that statement was made in the House that their friend, Mr. Rice Jones, whose name, I think my hon. friends will realize, is a comparatively well-known name in the West, wired to a certain firm in Brantford to know if he could be received by that firm on business. The answer went back promptly naming a day and asking him to come on.


John Archibald Maharg: They will all sell now.


William Foster Cockshutt: He did not come; but he wired again in a few days to know if he could be received, and again he got an answer:	" Come on." Apparently, he
was looking for a telegram to say:	"We
will not meet you and we will not sell to you;" but he did not get it. He got an invitation to come on, and that is the last thing that he wanted. But finally, after great deliberation, and no doubt after some of my hon. friends had been consulted, he came on and the firm on whom he waited said to him:	"Submit your proposition
with regard to buying implements; we will consider it, and we hope to do business." But up to the last time that I have heard, not a word has come out from the hon. gentleman's friend in the West since. Does that show any strong desire to buy in Ontario? He wanted to be refused, and then he wanted to go down, as the hon. member for Marquette has done, into York-Sun-bury and flourish a telegram there and say: " One of the big implement people of Canada has refused to sell agricultural implements to the farmers and that is the reason why we are buying them in the United States." But such was not the answer he received. I have not made any canvass of the manufacturers, but I have stumbled across three who have not only offered to sell, but have sold, to the Grain Growers' organization. Does that prove that the manufacturers of Canada will not sell? When the Farmers' party made that statement, did they mean that every manufacturer had been tried by them and that every manufacturer had refused? If they did not, they had no business to use the words that they did. They might have said:
" Some manufacturers will not sell to us." They cannot say that all the manufacturers will not sell to them, because they have not tried them all. Some manufacturers who have wanted and who have tried to sell to them, have not been able to sell very

much, so that the Agrarian party have not very much grievance in that regard. The fact of the matter is that their whole opposition is against the implement industry in Canada, and when they can buy an article outside instead of inside the country, they are going to buy the article from an outside manufacturer. As was pointed out in this House on more than one occasion, the only Canadian-made article in a 100-page illustrated catalogue issued by them, was a wogon made in Petrolea. I think, perhaps, my hon. friend may recognize it. Whether they drove too hard a bargain, or whatever was the cause, the business that they gave that manufacturer was not long in shutting up the works, and it is a dead duck to-day. That was practically the only item manufactured in Canada amongst the implements advertised in the whole of their list. The United Farmers were offered the plant for a mere song. But did they buy it? No, they looked over it pretty carefully:	It was going at about
30 cents on the dollar, but there was so much money in making wagons that they did not think they would venture even that much in the business, so they did not buy it, and the business has since passed into the hands of another Brantford concern, by whom it is being run at the present time.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) tells us that free trade is a brilliant success with regard to binder twine, barbed wire, and cream separators. We have heard from the Prime Minister what happened to binder twine. If there is any one in the House who should know something about binder twine, I think I should, as I have lived almost within sight of two of the largest factories in Canada for a great many years. Binder twine was put on the free list some 12 or 15 years ago. At that time there were about 20 factories in Canada manufacturing binder twine. That number has since shrunk to three, and one of these is an American concern. The farmers did not even have pity on their own fellows, those who were in the same business as themselves, for the Farmers' Co-operative Binder Twine Company of Brantford was composed of about 4,000 farmers, just as good farmers as anybody, although they may not have been farming on as big a scale as some, but they had their money in this binder twine business, and at one time it was a great success, paying nearly 100 per cent in one year; but so drastic was the call of the West and so fierce were the denunciations of the Western farmers of a 10 per cent
duty on binder twine, which would have saved the business, that it was ruined, and the last remnants of that company are now being wound up. These 3,000 or 4,000 farmers who had their money in the concern, and owned it, were put out of business. The same thing happened with regard to a pork packing industry there, owned entirely by farmers. That was put out of business in a comparatively short time, but not by being put on the free list. However, they were handling a farm product that benefits right now, and always has for years, through the tariff. When my hon. friends of the Agrarian party tell us there is no benefit in the tariff to the farmer, I say that they do not know Ontario, although my hon. friend from Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) ought to know Ontario, for he tells us he was born here. He must have forgotten more than he should have about his native province, when he can stand up - and say that the tariff does no good to the Canadian farmer.


John Archibald Maharg: I am proud of it.


William Foster Cockshutt: Proud of what you forgot?


John Archibald Maharg: Proud of the province.


William Foster Cockshutt: Then I do not see why you do not remember it a little in your policy. The policy you are pursuing is destructive to the farmer of Ontario. You ask the fruit growers of Ontario, of whom there are a large number, what they think of your policy, or the vegetable growers, or the man who produces poultry and eggs. My hon. friend from Marquette tells us that the farmer gets no benefit from the tariff. Why, only recently there were 600 tons of Chinese eggs imported into this country under a duty of 4 cents a dozen. I would not mind seeing the duty put at 10 cents a dozen if it would keep those eggs out.


Oliver Robert Gould: We do not want that.


William Foster Cockshutt: No, because you do not raise chickens, but your chickens may come home to roost some day. I would like to have a little field day with my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Gould). If he will come up our way, we will take a bunch of farmers along to listen to us. He will draw the farmers, and I will try and give them the facts. I say that my hon. friends of the Agrarian party, many of whom came from Ontario, if they will consult the Ontario farmers, will find that the tariff has saved the farmers of Ontario.
My hon. friends talk about rural depopulation. I say that does not exist in our part

of the country. Our farmers have all the men they want. My hon. friends tell us, on the one hand, that they cannot sell their products at a profit, that hides are out of sight, that eggs, butter, cheese, wheat and all the rest of it are on the tumble, and then, on the other hand, they say: We will be saved if you populate the country-put more farmers on the land to raise more stuff that cannot be sold. That is a fine piece of argument, a beautiful demonstration of wit. They are going to be saved by getting more people to produce more of the stuff that they cannot sell now at a profit. I cannot imagine any other business in the world that would take that view. If my hon. friend wants to lose money, I would advise him to go into the plough business.


Oliver Robert Gould: I would cordially invite
my hon. friend to come to Assiniboia, as he has invited me out.


William Foster Cockshutt: I do not know but
what I would feel more at home in my native province, from which my hon. friend also comes. I have not forgot the hole of the pit from whence I was digged. I have spoken in the West. I am not afraid to meet men who do not agree with me; I have met them before, and it may be that I shall meet them again in this House. I am not afraid to give the reason for the faith that is in me, and I say in all sincerity that the protective policy which has been followed in Canada for the past forty years has been to the vast advantage of the farmers of Ontario. That can be proved to a demonstration in every town and city of our province, and on every farm that is adjacent to those towns and cities, in which the farmers sell their produce and get their price. The home market is the best; it is the market that pays for the goods, and takes them off your hands immediately. My hon. friends seem to look upon the home market practically as a liability, instead of as an asset. They say, why cannot the implement manufacturer sell in Canada as cheaply as the United States manufacturer would sell without the duty? Let me tell them a few things that the manufacturer has to meet. In the first place, he has to settle with the Dominion Government on his profits-and that takes a large part of them. Then he has to take out a Dominion charter. Even that is not sufficient; he has to pay for a license in every province in which he does business. I know of one institution, Mr. Speaker, that before it could begin business had to pay out $200,000 in taxes, federal, provincial and municipal. My hon.

friends of the Agrarian party propose to let the American manufacturer who is over the border, and who has not paid one cent of these taxes-who has not supported a single one of, our municipal institutions, who has not given a dollar to schools, a dollar to churches, a dollar to charity, or a dollar to the province or municipality-* come into this country and divide the market with the man who has paid all these things. And they call that a square deal.


Richard Smeaton White: How does the manu-,
facturer pay these taxes? Does he not pass them on to the consumer?


William Foster Cockshutt: He pays them in
cash.


Richard Smeaton White: Where does he get the
cash?


William Foster Cockshutt: As best he can.
Sometimes he borrows it.


Richard Smeaton White: He adds the taxes to the
price of the goods he sells.


William Foster Cockshutt: My hon. friend
knows that cash comes in slowly at times, especially if you have it loaned out, or have sold goods that are not paid for. My hon. friend who has lived so long in the West knows that there is quite an interval between the time that goods are soldi and the time they are paid for. This game of setting the farmer against the city man, and the city man against the farmer, is one that should not be indulged in. It cannot possibly lead to any good.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: Who began it, and who has carried it on in this House during all this debate? I would not have made any of these remarks if hon. gentlemen across the way had not courted them by making a vicious attack upon manufacturers as a body, and in doing so, they attacked every working man and everybody that is employed in our towns and cities and is dependent. upon these industries for his living. The question was asked the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) a few moments ago, whether he stood by the Farmers' platform and believed in the 50 per cent reduction as a preference to British goods. He replied that he certainly did. He has also endorsed the Council of Agriculture's platform, which declares that they want free trade with Britain within five years. I think my hon. friend recognizes that as a correct statement. Well, what does free trade with Britain mean? Free trade with Britain simply

means free trade with, the world. I have pointed that out on many occasions to my hon. friends, but they cannot see it. Free trade with Britain would simply mean that goods from the United States would go to Liverpool and thence into Canada free; it would mean that German goods would go to Britain and then come free into Canada. And the same would be the case with French and Belgian goods and the products of other countries. My hon. friend shakes his head, but he knows that he could not stop these goods from coming into Canada free if we had free trade with Britain. My hon. friend knows that if three wells are connected by pipes the water will run freely from the first into the third though it has to go through the second; the water of all three will find the same level. So that my hon. friends, when they talk about free trade with Britain, are simply advocating free trade with the world, and if they have not got that fact into their heads they had better do so before they attempt to put this theory of theirs into practice. Let me repeat once more, for the benefit of those hon. gentlemen, that free trade with Britain is free trade with the world.
Those hon. gentlemen have denounced this Government for reckless expenditure and tremendous extravagance, and my hon. friend from Marquette, again, is the one who has principally made these charges. Let me ask the hon. gentleman this question: What about his own farmer government in Ontario? What about their spending proclivities? Has he a word to say in condemnation of them? Well, Sir, if the sample of government we have got from the Farmers in Ontario is to be taken as a fair example of what they would do for the whole of Canada, then, I say, the Lord help the country. The hon. Peter Smith, the great financier, of Ontario, in one year, the first year of his record, floated upwards of $70,000,000 worth of bonds in the name of the province. Think of it, Mr. Speaker. Seventy million dollars' worth of bonds in one year, a sum that ran the whole Dominion of Canada and more than ran it, when I first came into this House not so many years ago. And yet my Farmer friend has the temerity to talk about reckless extravagance! I hope he will send a wire to the Hon. Peter Smith, the Provincial Treasurer of Ontario, calling the attention of that gentleman to his denunciation in this House of reckless expenditures and unwarranted extravagance. Talk about road expenditures! Ask my friend from Hamilton and my friend from Wentworth; they can tell you something about road expenditures, and they have not got any kind of roads yet. Talk about reckless expenditure! Well, there is a guess coming to my hon. friend if he thinks that this country will save much by putting in an aggregation like that which we have in Toronto, which is the most reckless that the province has ever had, by all odds. There is no doubt about that fact, and if the hon. gentleman does .not believe it he can come up and look at the Government there. I tell you, Sir, we were caught napping. The expenditure there is the most reckless that the province has ever seen. They imposed new taxation, selecting five different ways. Four of them applied entirely to the cities and the fifth applied partly to the cities and partly to the country. That is the class of taxation they put on. So that if this is an example of what our good friends will give us when they get into power, I think we have gone far enough in the direction of putting our Farmer friends into governments in Canada.
My non. friend from Marquette says that the cream separator business has been a great success in Canada. Now, what cream separator does my hon. friend buy for his organization? If my information is correct he buys American cream separators, notwithstanding that he tells us the Canadian business was a great success under free trade. I am told-I may be wrong, but that is my information-that his organization is buying separators made in Buffalo. Those hon. gentlemen tell us that barbed wire, which was put on the free list, has also shown its ability to live. Well, I do not know where there is a barbed wire factory operating in Canada to-day. During the war, and practically at the very outset of the war, tens of thousands of tons of barbed wire were wanted for wire entanglements at the front, but we had not a factory in Canada, although, before this article was put upon the free list, there were twenty or thirty factories in this country devoting their attention largely to the barbed wire industry. But the whole industry was wiped out by the placing of this article on the free list, and that is what will happen to other industries if you put their manufactures on the free list. If these industries are ruined in this way the workingmen, who earn their bread by the sweat of their brow in the factories of the Dominion, will have to find homes elsewhere. Surely, in view of this, it will be admitted that the policy

which is proposed in this Budget, of moderate protection, is one of the best that can operate in Canada.
Now, I had not intended taking up so much time, but it was my wish to put on Hansard a few facts, with regard to the implement business, as prepared by the Massey-Harris Company and signed by Mr. Thomas Findlay, its president. He gives some interesting facts in a pronouncement submitted to the Finance Department. He outlines the history of the business from the year 1883 and shows that people can buy implements as cheaply in Canada as practically in any other country in the world; and the statement which is freely and often made that implements can be bought in all foreign countries cheaper than at home he proves to be entirely fallacious. He gives here the proof in regard to that and also deals with the statements made by my hon. friend from Victoria and Carle ton (Mr. Caldwell) with reference to what could be bought in Maine and in New Brunswick. He puts that hon. gentleman straight in a letter that was addressed to the department, showing that if the prices submitted by the hon. member had been taken advantage of and he had bought his implements in Maine instead of in New Brunswick he would have been money out of pocket. The hon. member is in the House and he probably remembers the figures he gave. The refutation is here in a letter which was sent to the Finance Department showing that my hon. friend, probably with no intentional unfairness, quoted the cash price in one instance and the credit price in the other. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is easy to show a difference if you do that. It costs something to give six months or a year's credit; and there is the interest.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to make a correction?


William Foster Cockshutt: I will not object to a Short statement, but I do not want a speech.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I have the Massey-Harris price list-


William Foster Cockshutt: I do not want a price list. If I misrepresent my hon. friend he can correct me.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I have the Massey-Harris price list, and-


Mr. SPEAKER (Mr. Steele):: Order.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: -the hon. member is not representing me fairly.


William Foster Cockshutt: This document has been carefully prepared. The firm went to the trouble of sending a special delegate to Maine to verify all the prices, to compare them with the prices in New Brunswick. When my hon. friend is on the platform down there he ought to be careful, because there may be some one watching him, and while he may get away with things on a platform, where there is no one to refute any wrong statement, nevertheless the facts can afterwards be obtained. And the fact is that, in this instance, he gave the cash price on the one hand and the credit price on the other.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That is absolutely
false; I gave the cash prices in both cases.


William Foster Cockshutt: I am telling the
hon. gentleman what is in the letter that was carefully prepared, submitting all the facts. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I have said enough to show that the policy that has been pursued in Canada with success for so many years in the development of our industries and in the building up of the country-not only the building up of our cities but the development of our natural resources-is one that is eminently in the interests of this country, and there is no doubt that Canada, in that policy is going in the right direction. In the matter of developing not only what may be called the city industries, but our natural resources-such as pulp, paper, minerals; all those things that go to build up a great industrial nation-Canada has embarked upon the right policy. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if this policy is continued and pursued we will finally emerge from the difficulties and dangers in which the war has left us. Although matters do not look well at the present moment, although there are difficulties and dangers ahead, I believe they will be surmounted by united effort and by an honest determination on the part of our citizens to live and to let live. To raise any cry in the country to the jeopardy of a particular class is a dangerous policy. You may succeed in pulling down, but you will not succeed in building up by any such policy. Therefore I beseech hon. gentlemen on both sides that we should devote ourselves unitedly to the building up of all the industries of Canada, both urban and rural, and that as one united people we go on with a determined, honest effort to make the best of the grand heritage with which Providence has blessed us.


Mr. FREDERICK FORSYTH PARDEE (West Lambton) :: I entirely agree with
the sentiments expressed in his closing remarks by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. We ought all to be united, and we ought all to follow the purpose that will tend to the building up of Canada. The question is, what is the best course to pursue'to attain that end? We have listened to the speech of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt). He is still a high protectionist, and he has expressed again this afternoon the views which he has uttered in this House and in the country session after session, and year after year. I have no doubt the hon. gentleman is absolutely sincere in his views but we on this side cannot see eye to eye with him, and it is for the people of Canada to decide which is the best policy to adopt. The Budget brought down by the Finance Minister may be satisfactory to hon. gentlemen opposite, but there is one thought that occurs to me, as it would accur to the ordinary individual: I cannot quite grasp the legerdemain of the book-keeping which declares that, although the expenditures exceed the revenues by $101,000,000, and that amount has been added to the national debt, therefore we still have a surplus. To the ordinary man such a proposition as that is a conundrum, and I do not believe the country will take very much stock in it.
Now as to the Budget, and the tariff proposals which accompany it, are concerned, I would point out first this fact: for a long time past this Government has maintained that there would be tariff revision; to that end a commission, headed by the Minister of Finance, has travelled from one end of Canada to the other, and I read the statement in one newspaper that evidence had been taken to the extent of two million words. We were told that the tariff would be revised and placed in such a condition as to satisfy the whole of the people of Canada. Following the tariff inquiry Parliament is called, the representatives of the people assemble, the Budget is delivered-and there is no general revision of the tariff such as we were led to believe would take place. What reason is given for this? That on account of some contemplated changes in the tariff of the United States it would not be well to make any change in our own tariff at the present time. Let us see how well that excuse pans out. There was an election in East Elgin on November 22, 1920. The Prime Minister visited that constituency and he said "Elect our candidate and we
promise you that when the next session of Parliament comes there will be a revision of the tariff. We are now collecting the necessary information to that end. The Tariff Commission is now going from one end of the country to the other making an inquiry, and we will give you a tariff revision." Parliament met on February 14, last and in the speech from the Throne tariff revision was promised. However it has not taken place. Surely it cannot be argued that delay is due to the Fordney Bill, or the Young Bill. Because, at the very time the Prime Minister spoke, on the occasion alluded to, the terms of the Fordney Bill were known. Then what excuse or logical reason is there for the Government's failure to implement its promise and revise the tariff? The reason, to my mind, is to be found in this fact: The high protectionist friends of the Government descended in a flock upon them and said "Leave the tariff alone if you have the slightest regard for your life." The tariff has been practically left alone. In so far as regards any changes that have gone into effect, these changes mean more taxation and a further raising of the cost of the people's food. What do we find in the Government's Budget proposals? Taxation of the necessities of life; the duties on cocoa, chocolate, and so forth increased; increased taxation applied to arrowroot biscuits, an article that plays an important part in the diet of infants; and a further upward lift to sugars. The Minister of Finance may be proud of such tariff changes as these, but of the articles to which I have alluded there is not one that is not an actual necessity of life, or that does not form part of the ordinary everyday meal of the masses of people. On a former occasion I suggested to the Finance Minister the proper course for him to pursue. I shall not now repeat the views which I then expressed except to say this-If the Government desires to impose taxation let it place that taxation on luxuries, and reduce the imposts on the necessities of life to the greatest extent possible. We have in this country the most serious unrest that Canada has ever witnessed. Will that unrest be allayed by the imposition of further burdens upon the people? No; the right policy to pursue is to make that taxation as low as possible and to leave free of taxation as far as possible the necessities of life. Not very long ago a friend of mine, Mr. McKinnon -who I believe is President of the Manufacturers' Association-found fault with

certain of my remarks on the subject of high protection and in reference to my having said that he was "a Haman's gallows man" Mr. McKinnon declared that he did not think I knew what the expression meant. Well, I have not read the book of Esther of late, but my recollection of the Haman incident is this: that Haman was a man who erected a high gallows for the purpose of hanging a certain people and had all his arrangements completed, when suddenly it was found that Haman was not all that he appeared to be, and he was hanged on the very gallows that he had prepared for others. Now, may it not be that the Government, in still pursuing their tariff policy of higher taxation on the necessaries of life, will find themselves in a political sense, in the same plight as Haman, at the impending general- election?
I am not going into an analogy on tariffs, but while listening the other day to my hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) I could not help thinking that of late there seems to have come, over this House a tendency to depreciate Great Britain. We are told:	Oh, no, you
must not copy the fiscal policy of England, because she is becoming decadent. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that any country that could have done what Great Britain did during the war-in the field, in financing so many of her Allies, in transporting a large proportion of the United States soldiers across the Atlantic, and in furnishing munitions and equipment, and that today is able to reduce her national debt by $200,000,000, is not very decadent. To say the least, we need not be ashamed of her being at the head of our Confederation, so to speak. To my mind she has shown that she is absolutely the leading country in the world. Apparently the fiscal arrangements of Great Britain are satisfactory to her people, and I for one do not think that it comes with any very good grace from hon. members to decry Great Britain and, in effect, to say to her people: You do not know what you are doing with your economic system; you ought to do thus and so because we in Canada think you should. It appears to me that in our present position we have ample to occupy our time in looking after our own business without bothering the people of our great Mother Country, and I think that if we stick to a purely Canadian platform we will he fulfilling the duty for which we were sent here by our constituents.
The trouble with Canada, so far as I can make out, is that she needs to extend

her foreign trade. If we would build up our manufacturing and farming interests we must find them more markets for the sale of their products. In this connection I would direct attention to the flourish of trumpets with which my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) brought down his statement of operations of his mercantile marine. But it seems to me that it would have been well had the Minister of Finance taken the Minister of Marine and Fisheries gently aside and said to him: You have already spent millions and are to-day proposing to spend more millions on your mercantile marine; hut in our present financial condition with our per capita debt almost $300, this is not the time to spend more money on a doubtful venture, and you had better cut your vote in two. Had that been done the money so saved could have been devoted to extending our foreign trade and letting the world know that Canada was on the map and ready with the goods and willing to trade. It has been predicted, and I am sorry to say that I believe the prediction will come true, that between now and another year we will have this mercantile marine, this creation of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, a white elephant on the hands of the people, and he will have to sell the ships for a quarter of what he paid for them. What is the good of repeating the argument? In all the ports of the world you have bottom after bottom absolutely idle. I saw a statement the other day that although these ships of our mercantile marine cost between one and two hundred dollars a ton, there are ships lying in the Clyde to-day which would answer our purposes and which could be bought for $25 a ton. That statement was made by one of the very best informed shipping men in the Dominion after a recent trip to England; I refer to Mr. James Playfair, whom, no doubt, the minister knows. If freights are going to be hard to get, and unremunerative when you do get them, would not our money have been far better spent in the way I have suggested than in building more ships to rust at their berths? It appears to me that had proper allowance been made for depreciation, and so forth, the Minister of Marine would have had no surplus to show on the past year's operations of his mercantile marine; and it is pretty certain that even his present method of book-keeping will not enable him to disguise the deficit next

year, which will likely run into many more millions of dollars.
Taking into consideration the deficit on our mercantile marine and also the huge deficit on our railway operations, where are the people of Canada to get off at? How are we going to meet these enormous liabilities? This year our railway deficit is $69,000,000, and next year it is prophesied that it will be increased to $168,000,000. If this Government keeps on with its extravagant waste of the moneys of our people, numbering scarcely 9,000,000, what position shall we be landed in? Have the Government curtailed their extravagance? They have not. As the hon. member for Marquette said to-day, the extravagance still goes on, the money flows like water, and no heed is taken of the present or the future.
In so far as our railways are concerned we have adopted the principle of public ownership. I do not say that the Government did not have to take the railways over, but now that they have got those railways, I say frankly that I have yet to be convinced that government ownership is the proper thing. But if it is to be made a success two factors are essential; in the first place, there must be complete elimination of even a colourable resemblance of the interests that were formally associated with the railways which have now become part of our national system. I have great respect for Mr. D. B. Hanna, and in making these remarks I do not desire to reflect upon him; I think he is a perfectly honourable and a perfectly just man. But, Sir, Mr. Hanna is unfortunate. There is no question about the fact that among the people of the country generally -among	Liberals, Conservatives and
farmers alike-there is an absolute distrust of Mackenzie and Mann. The people feel that the country was bled, not for the purposes of the Canadian Northern but for the benefit of subsidiary enterprises, thus bringing gain to the pockets of these two men. If therefore, the confidence of the people is to be regained, everything coloured with Mackenzie and Mann must be absolutely taken out of the management of the Government railways. There are rumours abroad to-day-whether or not they are true I do not know-that Sir William Mackenzie is still exceedingly active and exceedingly close to the management of the national railways so far as the Canadian Northern portion of it is concerned. Is it possible that Sir William, with his boundless ambition and with
his control of millions on the part of himself and his friends, is to-day angling for the ownership of the Canadian National railways? If anythink like that should happen, I have only to say that it would be a great calamity for the people. Therefore I submit that the first thing to do is to remove all traces of Mackenzie and Mann from the present management of the Canadian National railways.
The next step I deem to be necessary is this: There are many advocates of public ownership in Canada. The principle may be right, and it may be wrong; I have yet to be convinced. But if you are to have public ownership of any enterprise you must have at the head of the management, or included in the board of management, persons who believe in the principle of public ownership. The Government should, therefore at the earliest possible moment, in the reorganization of the management of these public roads, put at the head of that management or include in it men who have the utmost faith in public ownership and are in sympathy with it. If you do not do so, if you have on the board of management men who are entirely out of sympathy -with the principle of public ownership, these men are very human, and the best efforts may not be put forth.
Coming to the speech delivered by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) in this House the other day, I would say that the keynote of it-to be candid, the only note in the speech-was a manifestation of curiosity to know something about hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. The right hon. gentleman said that there was no Liberal party, and the hon. Minister. of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) has said: So far as the Liberal party isv concerned, we have them all; you have only a remnant. The right hon. gentleman in his speech the other day went from one subject to the other but he always came back to the same theme, "Oh tell me; for heaven's sake tell me, where are the Liberal party? Where are the Farmers' party? What are you going to do? Where do you stand? Please tell me so that I may know." It was like the man who had committed a murder and who had succeeded more or less in putting the thought of it from his mind; but just as he would be feeling that he had everything covered up and that everything was all right, the head of the poor murdered man would pop up and scare him to death. Time and again during the course of my right hon. friend's speech-in the middle, at the end, at the

three-quarter pole-he repeated: "Where are the Liberals? Where are the Farmers? What are they going to do?" Well, all I have' to say to the right hon. gentleman is this: The Liberals are here; they are quite content, happy, and waiting. The farmers are there, and none of them look to me like a "dilapidated annex." They all look strong; they all look healthy; they are there, content and also waiting. The Prime Minister says there is no Liberal party. He would give us to believe that he has nothing to fear; that the good old Tory party is still uppermost in Canada; that the old flag is still waving. Well, in order to gratify his overweening curiosity I would say to him that there is only one way to get an answer to all this questioning: appeal to the ppople and let them say. The people do not often go wrong. They are sane, the people of Canada; they know their way about pretty well. They have set ideas, and when they get an idea into their head they generally see that it is carried out. I strongly recommend to the Prime Minister, therefore, that he dissolve the House, go to the country, and say to the people: "I am not sure where these fellows opposite stand, and I want to know; the only way I can possibly know is through your verdict." Let the Government go ahead and try it. It is quite simple.


Arthur Meighen: How would that show where they stand?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Because the Government would be beaten and this side would be returned to power.
There is nothing in the Budget, Mr. Speaker, having in view a reduction in the cost of living, but there is much in it which will tend to increase the taxation. I propose to vote for the amendment because I think it will help to remedy that state of affairs. Just here, Sir, may I be permitted to make a digression? In 1896 Sir Wilfrid Laurier formed a Cabinet. It was referred to as the "Cabinet of all the talents"; it was a galaxy, Sir, of clever men-of men who had the interests of this country at heart, men of foresight, men who had a proper conception of the needs of this country. In every way it came up to the expectations of the people as well as the expectations of the great Leader who formed it. In this House and in this present Canadian Parliament, we have but one of those men left.
I know I voice the sentiment of every man on this side of the House, and I am sure I voice the sentiment of every man on either side and especially the sentiment

of the people of the Dominion of Canada, when I say that we all hope and pray that long may he (Mr. Fielding) be spared with his wise counsel, with his keen insight into the needs of the people, to help to guide and shape the destinies of this great Dominion of ours.
Now in closing:	Though neither a
prophet, nor the son of a prophet, I make this prophecy. Whether an election comes soon or late, an election must come, and the opinion of the people of the Dominion of Canada must be had; and my firm belief is that when that time comes, we shall have, as Minister of Finance in a Liberal Government, the man who brought down the tariff of 1897 and who made this country prosperous and happy, and that under his wise guidance a tariff will be so framed as to meet the needs of all the people of the Dominion. I believe that that will come about, and that he will be the man under whom the economic policies of the Dominion of Canada will be carried out. Let me say this to the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), that then not only the sun, but the moon and the stars, will shine; not only the rivers, but all the waters will sparkle; and the people of this country will be brought back to an era of prosperity that they have not known for some time.
At Six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.


Mr. JOHN HAROLD (Brant) :: Mr. Speaker, in opening my remarks I desire in the first instance to commend the Fin- * ance Minister (Sir Henry Drayton) and the Government for the way in which they have handled the present serious situation in our country. I believe that the wisdom of their policy will become more and more evident to the people of Canada as time goes on.
We are confronted to-day with a number of very serious problems. We have a business depression, and almost unprecedented unemployment throughout the country. The outlook for the sale of our surplus farm products is very unpromising; the revenues of the country are on the decline; our obligations are very great, and I believe, may become greater; our railway rates are too high, and our Government railway lines are losing money. All these things were inevitable after the Great War, with its inflation, and the deflation which had to follow. Canada so far has

weathered the storm and in my opinion is giving every promise of establishing her business and finance on a sound basis. We in this country have every reason to be thankful that, considering all we had to go through, we are in such a good position I can recall no other country in the world that can be regarded as being in as good a position as Canada to-day.
The manufacturing industries of our country are under attack at the present time, and those who are engaged in them feel that it is necessary that they should justify their existence. In relation to all the problems which I have just mentioned, I would like to say that I believe that unless the manufacturing industries of this country are properly handled, all these problems will become intensified. In a crisis such as we are facing to-day, when a great issue is raised, it becomes imperative that we should face it frankly and leave no doubt as to where we stand with regard to it. A great issue has been raised; it is an old one, it is true, but what has happened in recent years has made it stand out more prominently than at any time in the past, and the action that we may take as a country to-day is going to be of greater importance to the interest and welfare to the people of Canada than any similar action we might have taken in the past.
It is my intention, Mr. Speaker, to try and make my position perfectly clear upon the issue of protection or free trade, because after all it seems to me that we can take only one of two positions. A man may in his belief in free trade as the proper policy for this country adopt an intermediate course, but by so doing he will definitely align himself as one who proposes to advance towards free trade at the earliest possible moment, and he also must take the ground that this country made a mistake when it ever departed from the policy of free trade. So far as I am concerned, after considerable experience of the tariff and its effects, and after having given some thought to the question, I have come to the conclusion that this country .took the only course that it was proper for it to take when it decided to adopt the principle of protection in its fiscal legislation. On that platform I am prepared to stand, as well as behind the policy outlined by the Prime Minister when he spoke to the House a few days ago.
In my opinion we should make some departure from the way in which we now deal with the tariff problems of this country. I believe that the people of this
country whose business it is to know about the tariff and its effects upon them should be put in a position where they may better understand the value of the tarjff and of protection, where they may understand the burdens that they may carry temporarily or permanently, in order that this policy may be carried out in the interests of the people of Canada as a whole. In order to do this, I feel that our machinery or organization is not fully equipped for handling tariff questions, and the relations of the tariff to the people of Canada and of other countries. If a conference were called-and such a thing might not be a bad idea-comprising representatives of labour, of the manufacturers, the merchants, the railroads and the producing industries such as mining, lumber, etc., together with representatives of the consuming public, they would not discuss the question as we deal with it on the floor of the House. I believe they would try to co-operate and find out what were really the facts, what was the best policy, and how it would affect the various interests involved. Such a conference, in my opinion, would not disperse before unanimously demanding that the Government should establish a tariff board, or a board of experts similar to that in the United States. The member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) made the statement in the House that the Manufacturers' Association were asking for such a board with powers practically to usurp those of the Government. Such a request was never made by the Manufacturers' Association. I have their resolution here, although I do not propose to read it; but what they did ask for was that a board be appointed that would give information and advice and that would submit all the facts it might gather with regard to the tariff and its relations to the people. We must have a railway board to deal with railway rates, and that is not so complicated or important a matter as the tariff is to this country. Now the Manufacturers' Association, in asking for this board, gives us evidence that they do not desire to conceal the facts with regard to the subject. They desire the facts to be known, and they are prepared to justify their position. They have such faith in their position that they feel it would commend itself to the people of Canada as being one that could be sustained. Hundreds of labour organizations have also passed resolutions requesting that such a board be formed. I might



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
say, for the information of the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton, that in the United States, where the question was first mooted, it was the farmers' organization which was most insistent that such a board should be established, and since it has been formed the work it has done for the country has been so valuable that there-has been no thought, on the part of any party, of going back to the old system.
During the months of the fall, representatives of the Government travelled through the country gathering information on the tariff, and I am told that, in bulk, the pages containing the evidence taken are about three feet thick. I believe it would be quite impossible to-day to use that evidence to any great extent because much of it would be out of date. Now, in making this suggestion, I do not reflect in any degree whatever upon the Government, because some time ago a former government, of which several hon. gentlemen at present occupying seats on the Treasury benches were members, endeavoured to bring about such a reform. All I can say is that if they introduce it I cannot see how it could have anything but the heartiest support of members of the House, and I believe it would do a very great deal towards removing the misunderstanding with regard to the effect of our laws upon the people. There is a great fear in minds of many people that at present a few persons sit down in a room and try to decide this question without sufficient facts and an adequate knowledge of the whole situation, and that they are influenced in their decisions by political or other interests. That may or may not be so; we do not know; we are all human. But the tariff is the business of the public, and I feel that the door should be open and that all the facts should be laid before the people. Then we should be sure that whatever action was taken would have the support of the people, and its permanency would contribute greatly to the prosperity of the country.
Now to come to the question of protection. The first thing we must fix in our minds is what is best for the welfare of the country. It is in the interest of no particular class and of no particular province; it is a question of protecting our own nation. Are we not going to use any legitimate weapon to defend ourselves in a world in which practically every other country-I would say every other country-exerts what powers it has

to defend and develop itself? Great Britain has her own way of protecting herself, and in her commercial dealings she adopts the same principle as any other country; that is to say, she does that which she considers best for herself. If I believed in free trade I would look upon this as a country that was to be made free for any one to come into it and use its resources in any way he saw fit so long as he did what was legal; and it would seem to me that the logical conclusion, from this statement, would be that there should be the same freedom with regard to immigration, and that we should permit the free entry of any person who desired to come to our shores. But we do not believe in that principle, and I do not see how it is possible for any one to contend that free trade is really a practical question in Canada to-day. If we believe in protection, therefore, the question is not whether it is high, or low, or moderate; it is a principle we apply as a physician would give treatment to a patient. It may be that at times high protection, like strong medicine, is the best thing to administer; but no one contends that it should be habitual. I think that .it is best in this country, generally speaking, that we should have a medium or moderate protection; but the defenders of high protection can cite many instances of the success of that policy, particularly in the United States, where it has achieved such splendid results in building up that great country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have tried to follow the debate rather closely, and to pick out some of the points that I felt I was in a position to give special attention to, and in bringing these forward I do not wish it to appear in any way that I think any hon. member is endeavouring to mislead the House. What I do know is, that there is a very great misunderstanding with regard to this whole question; and I do feel that the Government took the right and proper stand when it decided that it was not in the interest of this country that an election should be brought on during the abnormal times that have existed up to the present. I would use as an illustration this fact- that up to a very short time ago, the business interests of this country were in the position where it could be said that they had reaped very large profits. During the time of inflation large paper profits, or book profits, were made; but during the past few months a large part of these profits, and in some instances all the accu-

mulation of the years of the war, have been swept away. Not only that, but many of these companies have paid heavy taxation to the Government and to-day owe the Government amounts of money on which they are paying interest, and they are unable, with their working capital, to continue the operation of their plants. It would not have been fair to the people of this country to have brought on an election at such a time as that; it would be like trying a prisoner without giving him an opportunity to properly place the evidence before an unprejudiced jury. What have we now? We see the other side, and it was only due to the people that this Government should have held off an election until they could see the other side of the question. Not only is the situation as I have stated but for some years, upon a thousand platforms in this country, the position of the great industries of Canada have been grossly misrepresented. By so stating, I do not mean that the misrepresentation has been intentional; it has been through ignorance and a lack of knowledge of the situation. The other evening the member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) made this astounding statement :
I say that under the present tariff we shall be paying to the manufacturers of Canada a bonus equal to $500,000,000 a year.
Mr. Speaker, I have tried to find out what the manufacturers' total profits are in Canada in a normal year. I have tried to arrive at it from different angles. The Census Bureau purposely covers that up because they have not the right to bring out those facts; but at least we can find out very easily by inquiry there that the manufacturers cannot make $500,000,000 a year. However, there was another way I tried to ascertain the facts, and that was from the taxation which is paid. We have a business profits tax and that tax has yielded about $40,000,000 a year. But all of that taxation is not on the manufacturing industries-all the great jobbing houses, and all the great retail stores-some of them like the T. Eaton Company and many other large institutions scattered through the length and breadth of the country-also pay that tax. In order to be very generous in the figures that I am using I therefore place the amount that the manufacturers might have paid at $34,000,000. In addition, we have the income tax on those corporations that would come under the business profits tax, that totals $13,400,000' but I would reduce that down to $8,000,000, and it yields a grand total of $42,000,000. Now when you consider that the minimum tax was 10 per cent, and a great many returns it was 25, 50 and 75 per cent, you will see how absurd is the statement, from that standpoint, that the manufactures can be presented with $500,000,000 yearly. My estimate is that the profits on three billion dollars of manufactures would run about $180,000,000, taking such favourable times as we have during the past couple of years, or an average of about 6 per cent net profit on the turn over.
An hon. MEMBER:: It is not very much.


John Harold: Perhaps not, but there is many a manufacturer who would be very thankful if he were assured that amount, and during this year there will be very few that will enjoy any such profit.
The member for Qu'Appelle in his figures overlooked several very important facts. *First, he overlooked the duty on the equipment; next, the duty on the materials, or parts, that enter into the finished article; third, the tax on the companies' profits; fourth, the tax on the dividends. In his computation he also overlooked the fact that the price is not fixed by the United States price plus the duty. In last year's customs returns I find that the importation of machines for manufacturers amounted to over $33,000,000 on which a duty of $8,336,000 was paid; and in looking through the many items in the report of the Customs Department it will be found that probably the largest amount of duties are drawn direct from the manufacturers for their partly finished goods or raw materials. For example on the item of steel the duties paid amounted to $5,623,650; including on angles and parts $1,216,000; on rolled iron for making milling cutters $706,000; also tubing for boilers and beds $578,000; wire $430,000; and fuel $4,865,000. It will therefore be seen how absurd it is for a man to charge a manufacturer with having put in his pocket all the amount of the duty that the schedule calls for on his goods. As a matter of fact he has not that protection. In a great many instances he has not one-half of it, because you must make due allowance for the duty he has bo pay on his imported material. Now not only is that a fact, but the manufacturer also reduces the price to a point where internal competition compels him to go; and in all the experience that I have had in any businesses that I am connected with-and I

am interested in several companies and know the existing conditions-I do not know of any case in twenty years where the price of the article sold in Canada was regulated by the price in the United States plus the duty. Protection does not make a contribution to a manufacturer any more than it makes a contribution to the employees who work for that industry. It simply makes it possible for the employees to secure work at fair wages, and for the capitalist to employ his capital at a reasonable rate, or otherwise competition will soon bring it down to the point where it is reasonable. There may be isolated instances of abuse, and it is to reach them that we should have a board of inquiry functioning. It has been my opinion that if this House had appointed a board to deal with the tariff and see that it was not abused, instead of appointing the Board of Commerce, we would have made much better progress.
Another thing overlooked was the tax upon profits. In fact, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) evidently forgot that whilst the business profits tax has been repealed the income tax on corporation profits has not, and that if a company makes, a profit of only one per cent on its capital it has to pay ten per cent of that to the Government, less an exemption of $2,000. If the company makes a profit of 10 per cent or 20 per cent the rate is the same. This I think should be amended and a graduated scale should be adopted. There are many companies to-day that will feel that tax very severely, but no complaints have been heard from them.
We will suppose that one man owns a company on the operations of which he makes $50,000 profit. His exemption of $2,000 leaves $48,000 subject to the ten per cent tax, which, plus five per cent supertax, represents a total taxation of $5,040. If he takes that profit out of his business he is taxed again to the extent of $5,050 by the supertax, or $10,090 altogether. And in speaking of the profits we must always remember that it is not the gross profits, it is the actual amount that in the end is left with the owner of the business. The manufacturer is also used as the medium for the collection of this sales tax to a very large extent. He has to pay one and a half per cent on his materials, and if he has sold his goods ahead he has to take another half a cent off his margin in that respect. He has also to collect the sales tax of one and a half per cent on goods sold to jobbers and

of three per cent if sold to retailers. When we look over the list of taxes collected from our industries, does it not appear that one should not be too hasty in getting up in this House and saying: We. have adopted a platform of free trade in the implements of production? I think it is a mistake for any political party to put itself on record to do anything whatever to this tariff until that party has had an opportunity of investigating its operation and giving the people concerned an opportunity of defending themselves. That is one serious objection I have to the platform of the official Opposition.
Another statement made by the hon. [DOT] member for Mackenzie was as follows:
I find that our customs tariff taxation per capita last year was $22.55, whereas the United States tariff taxation per capita was $3.15.
Then he works it out and continues:
It should also be remembered that to that taxation we are adding a sales tax which will represent a total payment in the case of the average Canadian family of $147.75.
That seems to me a most illogical position to take, because they have claimed no matter whether they can prove it or not, that the rate of duty on goods made in Canada is the amount taken out of the consumer in Canada, even though a manufacturer may sell his goods here as cheap as on the other side; but in the statement referred to they take the amount paid at the frontier as the basis for taxation. It is the high tariff in the United States that keeps out imports and therefore the comparative figures are not such as to permit us to arrive at any conclusion. Then the "average family" illustration is not a fair way of arriving at the expenses of an ordinary family. Why, all one has to do is to read over the list of taxes that were collected through the customs to find that the average family is interested in very little of the articles mentioned in the returns. Our legislation has been directed towards taking the burden off the average family. Take only three items-automobiles, engines, and boilers, and machines, on which customs tax was paid to the extent of $22,500,000. How ridiculous it is to assert that a workingman's family is paying $147 a year in tariff taxation. Any one could take the articles they buy and easily prove that the tariff tax paid is a very small amount indeed.
My good friend from Mackenzie also made this further statement:
We, on the other hand, claim that while the Government receives $1 from the customs revenue tax, our good friends, the manufacturers,

receive $3. If this is not correct, I am sure my good friends sitting opposite will show me that it is not so.
The arguments I have already advanced should make it clear to every hon. member-that that could not possibly be so. He -would say that we are presenting the manufacturers with $495,000,000; but it is questionable if after their taxation is taken off they have a third of that in profits. These are very unfortunate statements, and I would ask my good friends to investigate a little more closely before they make such comments. What we want is not to throw dust in the eyes of the people; we want to try and take it out. And it does not seem to me that Parliament is the place where statements Should be made that have not been very carefully weighed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have been told that in 1898 certain articles were put on the free list, and that the various industries concerned had been able to succeed notwithstanding the loss of protection. I have had a special opportunity of being in touch with some of those industries and I am going to deal with the binder twine situation. In 1898 we imported 2,405,000 pounds; in 1917, 66,000,000 pounds, or more than twenty-five times as much; but that is not an average year. However, I have a statement before me compiled a year ago from the latest returns I could get from the customs and the statistical branch, which shows that the amount of twine made in Canada for the years 1917 and 1918 was
59.000.	000 pounds; we imported 115,000,-
000 pounds and deduct exported 19,000,000 pounds; and the total we used was 155,000,000 pounds.	[DOT]
Deducting from the amount of binder twine made in Canada during those years
59.000.	000 pounds, the amount of exports,
19.000.	000 pounds, we find that the amount of Canadian-made binder twine used in Canada was 40,000,000 pounds, or only 26 per cent of tne total. Now, the member for Qu'Appe'ie suggested that industries should be encouraged that could work on a 10 per cent protection. Well, all that is asked by the company referred to to-day, the Brantford Cordage Company, is 5 per cent, and they say that the benefits that would accrue to the country would be very great. The extra freight resulting in shipments to the West would amount to over $700,000, and that would go to the benefit of our railways. The importation of the raw material ly the west coast from the Philippine Islands would yield freights
amounting to $212,500, or a total of $912,500. I give tnese figures also in order to show the extent to which the protection of the industries of this country has a bearing upon the railway situation. I would place myself on record as saying that we would be wise in affording a small protection to binder twine and believe that if a board or commission would make careful inquiry i' to the matter and examine the subject in all its bearings, they would recommend that that be done. Here is an item which I clipped out of a western paper last year; it is from Kelwood:
There is a continued scarcity along the line of gasoline. Binder twine supplies seem hazardous at the present time and old stocks have been depleted by farmers buying in advance. There is a serious shortage of barbed wire.
Then it say-.:
The district convention of the Grain Growers' Association will be held at Kelwood on July 10.
I hope that on that occasion this question was taken into serious consideration and that the grain growers there assembled considered whether it is advantageous that Canada's supply of binder twine should come almost entirely from the United States. They take their crop off first and if the necessary provision is not always made to supply Canada we are likely to go seriously short some day. The farmers' organization should take this matter up and try to help the binder twine interests to get reasonable protection, because thereby the interests of the farmers themselves will be protected.
With regard to barbed wire, in 1897, before the duty was taken off, we imported that commodity to the value of $80,467 while in 1920 we imported $2,056,000 worth. In 1918 we manufactured barbed wire only to he value of $300,000 for war purposes. Th? t does not look as if the industry had been a success under free trade. With regard to cream separators, I should like to point out that the situation in this regard was a somewhat peculiar one, due to the fact than many of these cream separators were patented articles and thus had a market in Canada assured to them by agreements with the patentees. Many of the most prominent makes of cream separators have an exclusive sale in Canada, and there is no competition from the same machine on the part of any other country.
In conclusion, I should like to give some reasons why we desire that our industries shall be continued in a vigorous and

healthy state. We believe that the industries are essential to our welfare because of the diversified employment they give to our people, the large home market they create for our products and natural resources, and' the extent to which they contribute to the strength and development of our railways. Our railways are the arteries, the veins and the capillaries which carry the life blood of commerce back and forth to every part of our Dominion-to the farm, the forest and the mine; and the industries keep alive and add increasing power to our banks and financial institutions. They also indirectly help the professional men and the merchants and affect directly or indirectly practically all other interests and activities of the country. The Government stands by this policy not with any desire to further special interests of the manufacturers, but with the laudable object of attaining the largest measure of unity, prosperity and national upbuilding.


Mr. A. B. McCOIG (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I wish in the first place to congratulate the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Harold) upon his very great effort as a former Liberal to justify his position in remaining as a supporter of the present Administration. I wish also to direct attention to the fact that of the seven important speeches delivered by members supporting the Government five were delivered by former Liberals and supporters of the great Liberal party from 1896 to 1911, when it administered the country's affairs so satisfactorily that in 1911, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Poster) could only say throughout the length and breadth of Canada:	" Let well
enough alone." It looks as if the present Administration is trying to commercialize these five hon. gentlemen, trying to send out word to the different parts of the country that on the Government benches there are five outstanding figures, gentlemen who assisted in carrying on the affairs of Canada when every person was so weli pleased with the conduct of the Government that they cried:	Let well enough
alone; take no chances of doing anything to bring about better times and to increase prosperity throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, contrast the message to which I have just referred with that handed out by the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) the other day. Did he say: Let well enough alone? No, that was not his cry. These are his words:
	.
Mr. Speaker, we in Canada have a great task before us. The world is sadly out of tune. May we help in restoring harmony? Trust and confidence are sadly lacking. Class interests are advanced with selfish insistence. Unemployment is with us. Faith in our fellow-men is weakened. Doubt of the future is often voiced. And what is the trouble?
What is the trouble, Mr. Speaker? I will endeavour to give you a few reasons for the trouble, after I read the following sentence which was quoted in part by the member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) this afternoon. The Minister of Finance said:
The sun still shines-the rivers still sparkle 

our lands are as great and fruitful as ever.
For these three great blessings mentioned by the minister we have to thank Providence, not the Government or the Minister of Finance.	.
"What is the trouble?" the Minister of Finance asks. All he has to do is to do as hon. gentlemen on this side have already called upon him to do. The people of Canada are so dissatisfied with the present Administration in their conduct of affairs of this country that they are bound to tell him what the trouble is, and, as the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Pardee) said this afternoon, let the Government appeal to the country and they will find out what the trouble is; they will have an answer, and without question they will have it in abundance.
As regards the present Budget, this is what you will find the people in the different cities and towns and in the country districts saying when they are asked if there is anything wrong with the tax which the Government has placed in this Budget of $10 a case on spirits. They say that while the referendum was held in Ontario on April 18, the day that importation into the province was prohibited was May 1, so that some days elapsed allowing the richer people, the men with plenty of money to fill their cellars and attics with all the spirits they might require for future years. Thus, the Government gave the man of wealth an advantage over the man in humble circumstances who might want a case or a bottle of liquor for different reasons. The man in humble circumstances is the man who is now called upon to pay the tax on liquor which he requires for medicinal and other purposes. Yet the Minister of Finance asks: "What is the trouble?"
Hon. gentlemen may laugh, but the people of the country do not consider this Budget any laughing matter. The necessaries of

life are being taxed by the present Budget. The Minister of Finance, in his address, stated that oatmeal and flour in packages under 48 pounds would be taxed. The man who has the means can purchase flour in 50 or 100-pound sacks or in barrels, and thus escape paying the tax; but the mechanic, who receives a weekly wage, hands his wages over to his wife on Saturday, and when she goes to the store to buy food, clothing and shoes, and to pay for her rent, light and heat, she is the one who has to pay the tax. She does not buy flour by the hundredweight, but she buys flour 12 or 25 pounds at a time. Is it not ridiculous on the part of the present Administration to say to that woman: "You will have to pay a tax on your flour if you buy it in less than 50 pound packages." Yet the minister asks: "What is the trouble?" The trouble is that the Government is not giving a square deal to the ordinary people of this country, but is giving an advantage to the wealthy classes.
Hon. gentlemen on this side of the House have drawn the attention of the Government to the fact that men on the mail and customs staffs, who are receiving small salaries ranging from only $900 to $1,000, are getting a cut of 25 per cent in their bonus, and yet the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) stands up in this House and defends the action of the Administration in that regard. Let me draw the attention of hon. members to the Esti-
9 p.m. mates which we have been passing from time to time. In every department you will find officials, who are drawing salaries ranging from $2,000 to $4,000 a year, receiving a handsome raise of from $100 to $300, and the man with the humble salary is receiving a 25 per cent cut in his bonus. Nevertheless, the Minister of Finance asks: What is the trouble? Let him go to towns and villages where the rural mail is delivered by men under contract at about $850 a year, out of which they have to keep a couple of horses. If these men have not a legal right, they have a moral right to be given an opportunity by this Government to get a living wage with which they may be able to look after their boys and girls and give them an education as any other parent would. But the Government hangs on to that paltry little contract and makes these men go through the storms of winter and heat of summer on a salary of $850 a year. If this Government was worthy of handling the affairs of this great country, the first thing it would do would be to say: "We will give to these
men a bonus so that they may raise their families respectably and, perhaps, some of their sons may be outstanding men in the future in this great Dominion of Canada. Yet the Minister of Finance asks: "What is the trouble?"
This afternoon we heard from the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and the question was raised as to the difference between the price of hides and the price Which the people of Canada have to pay for their footwear. Could anything be more ridiculous than the tremendous difference in price and the way in which the people of Canada are getting the worst of the deal in this respect? Can you blame the consumers of Canada for complaining when they see by the press that hog raisers in this country are getting $9.50 per hundred pounds and when they go into the different butcher shops throughout Canada they find they are charged from 50 to 60 cents a pound for ham and bacon, the same old price that the people were being charged when hogs were selling at $25. Yet the Minister of Finance asks: "What is the trouble?" Beef is 10 cents per pound on foot and yet the same old price is being charged by the abattoirs for the goods that we receive from them. Yet my hon. friend wants to know what the trouble is. Farmers who produce tobacco are receiving seven or eight cents per pound for it today and yet users of tobacco are paying the same old price for the manufactured article.
The Prime Minister, when he addressed the House on this debate the other day referred in a rather deprecating manner to the question of cream separators. Let me say for the benefit of the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) who spoke this afternoon that I drew the attention of this Parliament a number of years ago to the fact that cream separators were coming in free, and that as the hon. member for Brantford is well aware, when the Canadian manufacturers were getting out their price lists year after year, cream separators, on account of their being allowed into Canada free of duty, were the only articles on their lists that were not advanced, whereas, every pther manufactured article that was protected, was advanced in price from 10 to 25 per cent. That is the point that we wanted to convey to the people of Canada and not the matter of what cream separators are selling at on the two sides of the international boundary. The Prime Minister referred in the most complimentary

terms to Mr. Finley of the Massey-Harris Company. When he was referring to Mr. Finley's statement with respect to the cost of cream separators, with the abundant knowledge that that gentleman has of the manufacture of agricultural implements in Canada, why did he not ask Mr. Finley of that great corporation why binders and other agricultural implements are 10 per cent higher in price this year than they were in 1920, in face of the fact that wages of the labouring men in those factories have been cut at least once or twice during the last six months? Let me give this illustration by way of comparison for the benefit of the hon. member for Brantford. If a man wants to buy a binder to-day the price is $300. If he wanted to buy a binder last year, the price was in the neighbourhood of $250.
If he was going to pay for the binder last year with the oats he raised, taking the average crop as fifty bushels to the acre, it would take the crop off five acres of land, at last year's price of $1 a bushel, to pay for the binder, whereas to pay for the binder this year, taking fifty bushels to the acre, at thirty cents a bushel, which is the price oats are now selling for, it would take the crop off 20 acres to pay for that binder at present prices. That means that four times the amount of crop has to be harvested to pay for the same implement, yet the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) asks our Progressive friends, why they do not go into the manufacturing business. I say to the hon. member for Brantford: why do you not go into the farming business, if there is so much money in it?
I am glad to see the Minister of Militia in his seat. I wish to read him a short extract from his speech the other day:
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are told, on the other hand, that there will be no more war. and the cry is in some quarters: Wipe out all military expenditure. That cry is popular, very popular among some elements in this and every other country. It is particularly pleasant to the ear of the Bolshevist, to the ear of the Re I and to the crowd which gathers around the soapbox orator at the street corners in our big cities.
I wish to read another extract, which I have read on a previous occasion, to illustrate the point I am endeavouring to make. It is an extract from an article which was sent to the New York World by the present member for King's (Sir Robert Borden):
I sympathise most deeply and earnestly with every reasonable proposal for the reduction of armaments. Untold sacrifices endured in the great war will have been wholly in vain if the nations are still to compete in a mad struggle
(Mr. MoCoig.]
for supremacy in the power of destruction. The economic folly of such a policy Is too manifest to be gainsaid. Is there not a sorrowful and bitter protest from millions on the verge of starvation in Europe and which must ring in the ears of every thoughtful person.
Those are the words of the right hon. gentleman who at one time was Prime Minister of this country. I want to follow that up by referring to an article that appeared in the Toronto Globe of the very same date. It is a despatch from the city of Hamilton and is headed "Father is Sick, Kiddies Starve-Sad Case of Distress Found in a Home on Mount Hamilton." Here, right at our doors, we have a family on the verge of starvation, yet the Minister of Militia says that we have to spend millions more of the people's money to satisfy a few gentlemen in the department of which he is in charge. I say that the people of this country have no wish to rival any of the European countries in seeing how many millions of dollars they can spend on the militia. This is an agricultural country, a manufacturing country -not a military country. I want to quote a brief extract from a message that was sent to the soldiers of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces during the war, signed by the Minister of Militia:
Canada has to supply herself and the Allies with food. Men will be retained to secure the necessary production.
I believe that those words of the Minister of Militia will be received with a great deal more satisfaction by the people of this country than the message he gave to the Canadian people the other night.
Hon. gentlemen on the other side,-par- [DOT] ticularly the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Casselman), the other night,-have made the statement and disseminated it through the press that there had been no scandals in this country since the Conservative party came into power. When I heard the hon. member for Dundas make that statement I thought that though he may be up in years, he must be young in political experience, because many hon. members now in the House will remember the binocular scandal, and the drug scandal, for his connection with which one hon. gentleman opposite was read out of the party by the Prime Minister of the day. Surely no one who is a real Canadian has forgotten these scandals, and the Allison scandal, for they were, so to speak, the most scandalous scandals we ever had in this country. Hon. members sure have not forgotten the horse scandals, and particularly the hon. member

for Dundas, because I think it was the Conservative meAiber for the county of Peel in the Provincial Legislature who was so anxious at that time to supply the demand for horses for army purposes that when he could not get horses of the desired colour, and when grey horses came along, he had them painted black so as to meet the military requirements. Surely hon. gentlemen will not forget the number of days we sat in the Public Accounts Committee listening to evidence with regard to horse scandals in the province of Nova Scotia, that little province that sends so many good men to Parliament, but which on that occasion must have slipped a cog. We all remember how thousands of dollars of the people's money wefe spent in purchasing horses that were only fit to be sold to fertilizer plants, or make mucilage to place on the Government stamps, for which there was a great demand at that time. The horse scandals in that province were so bad that the Prime Minister read out of the party the gentleman who then represented the county of King's, N.S. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we find that this gentleman, who was incapable of purchasing horses for the Government to mount, our brave boys overseas in their fight with the Hun, was selected after showing his wonderful ability as a purchasing agent for horses to be the new Superintendent of Resources, for the Canadian National railways, in Chicago-one of the most important positions in connection with our great railway system, on which we had the enormous deficit last year of $70,000,000, which the people of this country have to put up. And my hon. friend the Minister of Finance asks what is, the trouble? What is the trouble? Do you mean to say that if a man is not fit to represent a constituency in this Parliament he is able to represent the Government in one of the most important positions in connection with one of the greatest railway systems in the world? These are some of the things which are causing discontent amongst our people, and which are responsible for the demand that this Government appeal to the country so that the people may have an opportunity of expressing themselves on the question as to who shall administer the affairs of Canada.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer. The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) the other day said that the duties on agricultural implements were lower to-day than they were when the Liberals were in power.
Let me tell my hon. friend that the request for free tractors to assist in producing greater crops in this country was first made in this Parliament by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, and it was turned down by the Government until public opinion became so strong in favour of that measure that the Government had to grant our request and allow farm tractors to come in free.
Another important matter which was brought to the attention of Parliament by this side of the House was the question of supplying tractor ditchers. The Government at first were loathe to take action in this matter, but when the demand from the Minister of . Agriculture of every province became insistent they finally decided that it was in the interests of increased production to allow these machines, which were not manufactured in this country, to come in free of duty. But what was done? The limit was fixed at $3,000 at which they could come in free. These machines sold for $2,600 and $2,800, but the moment the price went beyond $3,000 the Government stopped their admission because they would not amend their legislation in keeping with the advanced prices of these tractor ditchers.
Now, Sir, what did the Government do during the by-election in the county of Bruce? The greatest argument they advanced was that they were looking after the interests of the farmers and were doing everything possible to further agriculture in this country. We have requested the expert of the Finance Department to increase the limit at which these tractors may come in free, and I was on the deputation with the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Ross), which waited on the Minister of Agriculture and drew this matter forcibly to his attention, pointing out the importance and necessity of so amending the Act as to admit these tractor ditchers. To-day the tile factories are loaded up with tile, because they wanted to give employment to the labouring men in that industry and there is a great demand for tile drainage throughout Ontario. But the prices of these tractor ditchers are now prohibitory, as may be seen from the fact that only two of these machines were imported in 1920 and only one in 1921 from the Buckeye Tractor Company. These were both repaired machines, and were sold for less than $3,000. The importance of proper drainage is so great that the Provincial Government of Ontario, who were so greatly criticised to-day by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt),

thought it proper to increase the loan, which they give to every farmer who wants to tile-drain his land, from $1,000 per hundred acres to $2,000. That legislation has gone into effect and the farmers availed themselves of this great privilege last year, obtaining the money necessary for this purpose, to be paid back in twenty years at 51 per cent. This Government claim that they are doing everything possible to assist the producers of this country, but they pay little attention to the requirements of the farmers. Nor do they heed the requests that are made of them from time to time. In the face of these facts, Mr. Speaker, when we find in every city and town in this great Dominion hundreds of men out of employment, and, as I said a few moments ago, families in the city of Hamilton starving; when we find dissatisfaction rampant in every province of the Dominion; and when as the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) himself states. There is nothing but trouble, I think the following lines might well be taken to heart by the Government, if they are capable of appreciating the gravity of the situation to-day:
For the debt we owe is a mighty one,
'Twill last for countless years,
For the boys who have helped to defeat the Hun
Can't be paid with cheers,
It's up to you to lend a hand 'Tis a duty none can shirk;
So wave your flags and start your bands But get these boys to work.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka):: We have all listened with a great deal of pleasure to the stump speech of the hon. member for Kent (Mr. McCoig). That hon. gentleman, like many others who have spoken in the debate on the other side of the House, has chosen rather to make a political speech than to endeavour to contribute in some way to the solution of the great problems laid before the country by the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). Indeed, Sir, practically the whole burden of the song on the other side has been criticism of the Militia Department, the merchant marine and the dry dock at Victoria. That, practically speaking, has been the sole contribution of many hon. members opposite to the solution of the problems with which Canada is confronted to-day. The hon. member who has just taken his seat avoided, of course, any reference to protection as it applies to tobacco, just as the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) this afternoon, in that beautiful little speech of his which was as remark- ,
able for its lack of facts as for its weakness of argument, avoided any criticism of protection of the industries in his constituency. The hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Euler) skilfully skates around the question of protection as it affects the industries in his county; and a Farmer representative last night, we found asking for protection on potatoes and pulpwood. But the great problems that are before the country have been practically passed over.
Now, what do we find? The Minister of Finance has presented a statement of the business conditions in this country which is well worthy of the earnest consideration of every member of Parliament. I do not think I am saying anything out of the way when I assert that the minister's statement has been a surprise both to the Opposition and to a great many people in the country- a surprise to the Opposition, because they did not expect such a favourable statement of the finances of Canada to-day, a statement that has left them, so far as argument is concerned, utterly helpless in discussing the Budget as presented to the House. In the statement of revenue, for the past fiscal year, which has been laid before us, we find for excise $37,000,000. That has never been questioned by any man in this House. Hon. members have not suggested that it be either added to or subtracted from. And the revenue from the Post Office, amounting to $26,000,000, has met with the same approval. The business profits tax, $40,000,000, has not been adversely criticized, and the income tax of $46,500,000 has apparently suited every one in the House. Inland revenue, amounting to $79,000,000 odd, finds no objection in any quarter, nor have the other war taxes totalling $2,355,000. The only question in the whole category that has aroused any criticism is that relating to the cqstoms revenue amounting to $163,000,000. And what have been the criticisms in that re- ' spect? Certainly no one has suggested that the revenue has been too small, and it has not been contended, either, that it is too large. It is true that statements have been made by the member for Mackenzie (Mr, Reid) and by the member for West Lamb-ton this afternoon, to the effect that an undue burden was placed upon the poorer classes of the country. Well, that statement only exemplifies one thing, and that is that these gentlemen have not taken the trouble to acquire a true knowledge of the facts.
They have not had the inclination to get the facts and certainly do not know

them. Now, Mr. Speaker, if any man will take the trouble to go through the list of items-I placed them on Hansard last year

he will ascertain that over $100,000,000 of the $170,000,000 taken in at that time was paid practically on the articles which are only bought and consumed by the wealthier people of this country. I submit that when statements are made, such as were made by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Reid), that there was a tax of $110 on every family of five in this country it shows a deplorable lack of the actual conditions as they exist in regard to the revenue. We have had some criticisms too in regard to customs duties. I followed the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) very carefully this afternoon to find out what means of obtaining revenue he would suggest if the present method of customs duties from which we derive $165,000,000 were abolished, as my hon. friend has been advocating its abolition to a great degree. He has presented to the people of this country a number of very plausible suggestions. One was the imposition of a land tax, another direct taxation, and so on.
Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain that the people of Canada, for the time being at least, have had their fill of direct taxation. We gave them some of it last year in the form of a luxury tax, and any government that would again attempt to tax the people in that form would, in my opinion, be very unwise. Let us analyse the proposition for a moment and see what it would mean. It means this: If you are going to do away with that tax you must place taxation somewhere else, because there has been no suggestion here that any other sources of revenue than those which have been presented by the Finance Minister can be secured to carry on the affairs of the country. If you are going to raise the desired revenue by some other means what means are available? The imposition of a land tax was proposed for a while but that idea has long since been abandoned-at least I have not heard anything of it for the last twelve months. That proposition would mean a tax of $300 on every hundred-acre farm in this country. On the valuation it would mean a tax of 2| per cent. It would mean about $225 on every $5,000 farm; and if it were a head tax it would represent something like $22 for every man, woman and child in Canada. I submit there ,is no reasonable way by which the revenue which we
need can be collected so easily, and bear so lightly upon the people as by the present method. I make the assertion that this country to-day is carrying its great war debt as easily as any country in the world that was involved in the late war. It is true that we have a railroad problem, but for this I refuse to have the party on this side held responsible. When hon. members opposite first guaranteed the bonds of the Canadian Northern from Port Arthur east, they fastened, for all time to come, a railway problem upon this country as far as that road was concerned; and when they started in to build the Grand Trunk Pacific-fifty years before its time-they placed upon this country a debt and an obligation which is going to be a burden for many a day. We have been criticised by some hon. gentlemen opposite in reference to these obligations, but I am going to place those obligations where they rightly belong, and I say that those who were the means of creating them must assume the responsibility for them.
The problems before the country, as I see them, may be boiled down to two. One is that this Government has to carry on public affairs and secure enough money to pay our way as we go. The second is: what policy must be pursued in order to develop this nation in the northern part of the continent of America? As to the first,' there is no means suggested whereby the amount of money we need can be so easily raised and so lightly carried by the people as by the present method. With regard to the other question, I submit that the people of the Dominion over forty years ago settled once and for all the policy that must be pursued by Canada as long as it is a nation. That policy is the policy of protection. It was inaugurated in the year 1878, and from that time onward has never been departed from. I look upon protection as nothing more or less than an instrument for the development of the natural resources of [DOT] this country. Looking at the question from that standpoint I maintain that the policy was settled long ago-settled not only by Canada, but by the United States and almost every other country in the world-and that instrument for protection and for development is going to remain in existence as far as Canada is concerned.
I am sorry the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Claik) is not in his seat because he made some observations in his speech the other day that I would like to answer.

On that occasion he spoke about the trade of Britain increasing so rapidly. In spite of the fact that that trade has suffered a decline during the last month greater than did the trade of Canada, it is still enormous. But Mr. Speaker, he forgot to tell 

or he did not tell if he knew-that the one great cause of that trade was that nearly all the assets of the other countries of Europe are at the present time- and have been since the war-hypothecated in the Bank of England. Our Canadian manufacturers know that. They know that when they tried to give lines of credit to certain countries in Europe they were prohibited from doing so by the fact that the securities of those countries were nearly all tied up in the Bank of England, and that institution insisted that the trade should go to English traders and English manufacturers. We must bear in mind the fact that when we talk about developing our export trade with European countries it is a question of finance; and I think every man in this House will agree that as far as finance is concerned there are no better or abler people on earth than the people of the British Isles. In this connection I would like to quote a statement made by right Hon. Mr. Runciman in January, 1916, when delivering his budget. He said:
It will, in fact, be apparent to all close observers, that a country which fails to regulate and foster its industries in the national interest cannot, in the nature of things, long survive the rivalry of another country where the industries are so regulated and so fostered.
That is a statement by one of the leading men in the country which my hon. friend from Red Deer reveres so much. Let me now quote a statement by Abraham Lincoln. Ihat great statesman on one occasion said:
The tariff is a question of nation-1 housekeeping. It is to the Government what replenishing the meal tub is to the family. I
I might also quote statements from some of my hon. friend's favourite authors, such as John Stuart Mill who says, speaking of infant industries:
That a tax on infant industries for a time is the easiest way that a nation can carry them into development.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want for a few moments- and only for a few moments, for I will be brief-to place before this House some ways in which this policy has operated not only in Canada but in	the United States.
I find from statistics compiled by the Manufacturers' Association that we have

$400,000,000 of United States capital invested in this country in 600 branch factories employing no less than 87,000 men. Does any hon. member think we would have got those industries here if it had not been for our protective tariff? We have in addition $2,000,000,000 of British capital, and we have all told 700,000 hands employed in our industries. They are paying out to our people no less than $550,000,000 in wages. I ask hon. members opposite if they think that is not worth something to Canada? I would also remind them that according to the statistics our field crops in 1920 were worth $1,455,000,000. How much of that huge amount was exported? Only $271,000,000 worth. Where is their great market? The hon. member for Marquette to-day wanted to know where the manufacturer was going to sell his goods. I say to him:	If you wipe out your home
market where would the Canadian farmer sell his products? These two industries must be developed side by side to the equal benefit of both. Last year the manufacturers of this country spent $31,000,000 in wages for manufacturing food products, and employed 38,000 persons.
In that connection I want to indicate along what lines I think this country should be developed. The hon. member for Marquette this afternoon laid great stress on the American market. Unquestionably that is a great market and we would like to get into it. But how did they create that market? Did they not create it in the indentical way that I am advocating to-night? Is not the home market created by means of a protective tariff, that being the instrument which developed that enormous home market of 111,000,000 people to-day? He finds fault because we cannot get in there. Is it not natural for them to keep their market for themselves? And is it not natural for us to follow in their footsteps and create a market here along the same lines, that is, a market that they cannot take from us, which is the market that in the end will be most beneficial to Canada? Why should we hesitate to do that? Does any man doubt the ability of Canadians to do it? Compare our record in the war-I mean in a business sense. Canada with one-fifteenth of the population of the United States did one-fifth as much business. Does that indicate that we are behind them in resources or resourcefulness in developing industry and trade? It is just the opposite. I could give figures showing the enormous increase

in our foreign trade, but I will not detain the House.
The hon. member for Victoria and Carle-ton (Mr. Caldwell) the other night stated that he wanted protection on potatoes and pulpwood. I would remind him that it is only about eleven or twelve years ago since the provinces of Ontario and Quebec forbade the export of pulpwood to the American Republic. What is the result? I can show it here in a very few figures. In 1890, for example, Canada's export of pulp and paper totalled $120. I repeat the figure -$120. Last year it totalled $160,000,000. That, I contend, is the direct result of protection of that industry. In 1919 that industry employed 26,765 hands. Was it not good business to place an embargo on the export of pulpwood? Have we not created an industry in this country that is worth having and will be worth having for many years to come?
My good friend from Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) the other night presented some very interesting figures in regard to the iron and steel industry, and he will pardon me, I am sure, if I supplement them a little because it is more or less essential to my argument that I should do so. The iron and steel industry of the United States had a very severe struggle in the early days. The first attempt to introduce bessemer steel was in Milwaukee and I am told it was a failure after hundreds of millions of dollars had been invested in the enterprise. The second works were started at Troy, and I am informed that the buildings were subsequently sold for as many thousand dollars as millions were put into them. The next was the Freedom iron works in Pennsylvania, which went bankrupt, next the Vulcan steel works were started at St. Louis and failed, and following them steel mills were established at Joliette, with the same result. That is the history of the attempt to establish the iron and steel industry in the United States without suificient protection. Then the United States increased the protective duty and what happened? I do not think that I have as late figures as those presented by my hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River, but mine are all pre-war figures, because I did not think it fair to take anything during and after the war. We are told, for example, -and I think my hon. friend's information is authoritative-that steel rails dropped from $170 to $27.50 a ton. But I am not concerned with that figure. I know it may be contended that the Bessemer
steel rails were not as good as the iron rails, that they crystallized, and so on. The point is that in 1907 there was an output of 51,000,000 tons, 56,000 workmen were employed, and they were paid $31,500,000 in wages. Was that good business for the United States or was it not?
I might also cite the plate glass industry, whose history is more or less similar. The first attempt to establish the' plate glass industry was in New Albany, Indiana, but after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars the firm went bankrupt. Next an attempt was made at Crystal City, Mexico, but it suffered the same fate. Another factory was started at Louisville, Kentucky, in 1872, and that also failed, as did a factory started at Jefferson, Indiana. Finally, sufficient protection was accorded the industry, and to-day it is one of the greatest in the United States; and incidentally the price of plate glass fell from $2.50 per square foot to 59 cents. And, Mr. Speaker, I would interject here that wherever you have a commodity controlled by an importer you always have the highest price because of lack of competition, for it is competition within your own country that brings down prices and gives you cheaper goods.
Then take the pineapple industry in the United States, the history of which will be of interest to our farmer friends. The industry is just developing, but before a duty was placed on pineapples only 100000 crates were grown in the United States; in ten years that production has increased to over 1,000,000 crates. The same thing happened in respect to the wire nail industry. Prior to 1883 there was a tariff on wire nails of one cent a pound; they were selling at 7 and 8 cents a pound, and were practically all imported. In 1900 the duty was doubled, 5,000,000 kegs were made in the United States and the price dropped to 2 cents. The same happened in respect to sugar. When the Dingley tariff was passed in 1897 there were only six sugar factories in the United States, and the output was only 37,500 tons. In 1910 there were 65 factories and over 400,000 tons were produced annually; there was a fixed investment of $100,000,000 in the industry and $40,000,000 was paid out to the farmers and the labour employed in connection with it. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if that is not the kind of industry that is worth something to a country? In ten years the United States sugar factories produced 24,245,000 tons of sugar and paid $121,000,000 in wages.

The average value of coal per ton at New Zealand for the years named was as the pit's mouth produced in the United follows:
Kingdom, United States, Australia and
1886.
1895
1900,
1910
This bears out my statement that the amount of wealth produced per person is the real basis of prosperity. The point I want to make is this-and you can get the same figures in reference to Germany- the amount of wealth produced per person is greatest in the countries which protect themselves and their own industries.
I repeat, I am sorry the hon. member for Red Deer is not in his seat because I have some other figures that I should like to call to his attention, but it is not worth while putting them on Hansard. My point is that from the time Great Britain inaugurated free trade until the present time, her exports to protected countries have been diminishing year after year and her imports from the same countries have been increasing. We know that she had an adverse balance of trade, but there is more than that in the matter. If you would subtract from her adverse balance of trade, her trade with her colonies and countries without a protective tariff, you would find that the showing would be still worse. She made up her loss to protected countries 'by increasing her trade with her colonies and countries without a protective tariff. Let me carry the argument a little further. If all these countries protect themselves against her, it can be readily seen how Great Britain is going to be handicapped in trade, and I do not wonder that, at the present time, she is rapidly drifting towards protection. I have a great deal of admiration for the people of Great Britain; I think they are the best and most resourceful people on earth; I am not a prophet, but I do not think it will be many years before free trade in England will be a thing of the past. I think it was Chamberlain who said that "a nation that ties its hands, gets pretty well cuffed." The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) said the other night:	"She loses
her power of bargaining when she throws away the protective instrument that she has."
United	United	NewKingdom	States	Australia	Zealand3. &.	s. d.	s. d.	s. d.4 10	6 41	- [DOT]8 3	5 23	8 6	11 06 01	4 91	6 4	11 110 9J	5 3|	6 0	10 96 111	5 8	6 2	10 78 21	5 101	7 61	11 11
I have some facts regarding Great Britain's trade, navigation laws and so on, but I will not weary the House by presenting them. Before I close, I want to point out that even Great Britain developed her industrial conditions under protection. When she threw away protection in 1849, she was the most highly developed industrial country in the world, and, consequently, she was capable, not only of looking after herself, but of getting a great deal of the business of the world. If you analyse her statistics of trade following that date, you will find that when gold was found in California in 1850 or 1851, Great Britain secured a great deal of the business and her exports to the United .States increased by 94 per cent. When gold was found in Australia, Great Britain again got a great deal of the business and her export trade to Australia increased by 360 per cent, while her export trade with the rest of the world increased by only 22 per cent. The same thing happened when gold was discovered in the Transvaal and later on in West Australia, but I will not weary the House with the figures.
I should like to refer for a few moments to our former friends and see what we have done for them. I will not refer to the reduction which this Government has made for their benefit in agricultural implements. It is not necessary for me to refer to the list of expenditures that we have, running into millions every year, on agriculture, and in my opinion, more should be spent. But when they object, as they did the other night, to giving Roumania a
10 p.m. credit of $25,000,000 with which to buy our manufactured products, I want to remind them, as Sir Thomas White did a year ago, of the $300,000,000 advanced by this Government to make possible the marketing of the products of the farmers of this country. I only wish that could be done again this year. I do not think it is fair to advocate protection in one direction unless you carry

it all along the line. I am firmly convinced that, in protection, -we have the only instrument that can make Canada a great country, and in that regard I include protection for the farmer as well as for every other man. I can quite readily see the rationality of the United States in trying to protect the farmers of that country. That has been the principle of the Republican party since that party was formed, and there is not a man in this House who does not know that, if the Young Bill goes through, it is going to be a detriment to Canada, but at the same time it is going to be a help to the farmers of the United States. The idea is that they want to protect their industries, their farmers and everything else within the borders of their country. That is the policy that should be carried out in this country.
I should like to put on Hansard for reference some figures which have been supplied to me by the former Minister of Militia regarding exemption to farmers, a subject that has been so often brought up, the claim being made that this Government broke its pledge in that regard. I am not going to argue the question one way or the other, although I am perfectly prepared to do that, just as I am perfectly prepared to answer the argument of the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) when, in this House a few weeks ago, he declared that every member from Ontario and the other provinces should apologize to Quebec. I want to tell him that I am not and do not pretend to be in the apologizing business. The figures supplied to me are as follows:
Total number who registered as farmers
under the Military Service Act.... 166,4S4 Number of above who claimed exemption	161,981
Number of above allowed exemption.. 141,532 Number who reported for service.. ..	4,503
Number of all occupations who were enrolled as soldiers under the
Military Service Act	 124,568
Of above the number of farmers were
approximately	 55,000
Number of farmers granted leave of
absence by , special Order in Council 29,650 In addition to above, there was granted' conditional leave of absence-harvest leave-to	 7,000
In addition to that, a number were made non-liable under special Orders in Council governing hardship cases, approximately	 2,000
I place these figures on Hansard simply for reference, because no doubt they will be useful to many people.
I have endeavoured to present to the House a few arguments showing the way in which we can meet our difficulties in 
the future. I believe Canada, with her immense natural resources of all kinds, must develop and perfect them to the greatest degree within her o\vn borders, and that we must send out from this country the finished product, thus giving the greatest benefit to the present number of our people.


Mr. ROCK LANCTOT (Laprairie-Nap-ierville) :: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the Budget speech is always interesting to this House and to the people of this country; but it is more so this year because the speech from the Throne announced that there would be a revision of the tariff during the present session. However, on the 9th instant the hon. Minister of Finance declared that the revision of the tariff would not take place this year. Now, the Government had judged proper during last year to appoint a commission composed of ministers and secretaries, to go over the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and inquire into our needs and guide the hon. Minister of Finance in this tariff revision. To my mind there was no need of this commission going over the country and spending tens and tens of thousands of dollars if the Government had no intention of going on with this revision. But I am not surprised, Mr. Speaker, that there should be no revision this year, for I have somewhat followed the right hon. Prime Minister's round last fall, and I concluded from his speeches that he did not want a tariff revision, for everywhere he preached the protection policy inaugurated in 1878. He contended in his speeches that it was the only proper one for the country. It was therefore useless to have spent the people's money on this errand.
Before entering upon the consideration which I intend to offer upon the new taxation, I must say that I do not very heartily endorse the new liabilities, for I did not encourage the Imperialistic policy which has been carried on since 1914. I was for three years the only one in this House to protest against this insane policy of sending five or six hundred thousand men to the great European war. I will recall to you, Mr. Speaker, what I stood for in this House in 1915. I then stated that we should take part in this war, but according to our means. I gave the illustration of a son who must help his father; but I added that if both were threatened with ruin, the son should stand aloof, for with a young family to bring up he should save the little money he has. The reverse took place, Mr. Speaker, we enlisted 590,000 soldiers, and

the result is that the son is ruined while the father is enabled to decrease the amount of his debts. Such is the result of our participation in the war. I see in the public reports that England has in the course of the fiscal year just ended decreased its debt by more than one thousand million dollars, while we have increased ours by more than hundred and one millions. If my opinion had been listened to at the time, if the Government of the day, led by the right hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden) had understood the interest of the country, they would have realized that the interest of the country would not permit the sending of more than one hundred thousand men, for instance, I will say two hundred thousand men in deference to the Imperialists. I believe that any nation in Enrope would have been satisfied with this contribution, for at that time neither England nor France, nor the other Allies, expected more from Canada, as it was known we could not do better.
In order to prove that I was right at that time, and that 200,000 men were a sufficient sacrifice-it was even too much, to my mind, but I allow this figure in order not to arouse the warriors of this House-here is what I find in the report of the proceedings of the special committee appointed by a resolution of the House of Commons, of September 18, 1919, to which was referred Bill No. 10 to amend the Act creating a Department for the re-establishment of returned soldiers in civil life, as well as certain Orders in Council relating to the work of that department:


The Chairman:: I desire to read to the committee a letter received by the secretary at noon from Mr. Cox (reads) :
Ottawa Canada, October 1, 1919.
The Secretary,
Special Committee,
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear Sir,

As instructed by the committee I have prepared an estimate as to,the amount it would cost to pay gratuity, of $2,000 on account of every soldier who saw service in Pranoe, $1,500 on account of every soldier who saw service in England, and $1,000 on account of every soldier who saw service in Canada only.
From the figures at present available, I estimate the cost of paying this gratuity would be $983,624.	*
Tours faithfully,
(Signe) Thomas Cox, Assistant Director Pay Service (Demobilization).
By Hon. Hr. Bfeland:
Q. What is that based on?-A. It is based on official figures.	.
By the Chairman:
Q. Who prepared this estimate?-A. I did, sir.
Q. Upon what basis was it prepared?-A. The total enlistments in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces were 590,572. Of those
418.052	proceeded overseas, leaving a balance of 172,520 who had service in Canada only.
Q. How many in iCJanada?-A. 172,520. And
418.052	proceeded overseas. Of them it is estimated that 50,000 did not get any further than England.
There are no aotual figures available showing the number of men who did not get further than England, at the present time, tout I have discussed this from the information we have, and have confirmed it from the heads of all the other departments, and I believe that this 50,000 is a fair estimate. Taking the 50,000 from the 418,052, it leaves those who proceeded to France or to some other cambatant area at 368,052. Multiply this by $2,000 for each of those who saw active service and it would mean the Government would have to pay them a total of $736,104,000. Then pay 50,000 soldiers who served in England a bonus of $1,500 each, and this would come to $75,000,000. Pay $1,000 each to the 172,520 soldiers who served in Canada and there would be added to the above amounts the sum of $172,520,000. This would make a total for all three of $983,624,000.
By Mr. Cooper:
Q. That does not include the Imperial veterans or their dependants?-R. No, Sir.
I do not need to say more. This is sufficient for the point I am making.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what conclusion could an impartial man draw from all this-I mean a man who is not a politician, who is biased by no political considerations? It is this, that when the Government whose leader was the right hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden) imposed upon us as a conscription of 100;000 men, it was not with the object of winning the war, but of winning the election of 1917. If there were an immediate need of 100,000 men, why did the Prime Minister and the Minister of Militia not send first the 50,000 men who were in England at that time and the 50,000 men who were here in Canada and whom the Government kept here to hunt for conscripts through the country? That would have solved the problem of the 100,000 men alleged to be needed. But that did not suit the Government. Conscription was imposed. What happened? The available soldiers in Canada were used to gather conscripts. The province of Quebec was hounded. The object of conscription was to win the election. The Government wanted to have it said in the other provinces that it was absolutely necessary to enforce conscription against the Quebec people who refused to do their duty. Our friends from Ontario were nevertheless a little disappointed themselves, for their candidates had promised them that they would not be disturbed by conscrip-



[Stage Direction]
tion, that the measure was directed against the people of Quebec only. I believe that it is to some extent an outcome of all this that we have among us a third party- the Agrarian party-that I am pleased to see in this House; and if the electors of Ontario have rid themselves of the Hearst Government, I believe that it was also due to conscription.
I now come to the speech of the hon. Minister of Finance. The minister is gratified with the volume of business done by us, which amounts to $2,429,288,755. Our imports have increased by $175,608,887, and our exports decreased by $50,328,397. Our volume of business has been large, it is true; the proof that it was very large is that we are poorer than ever; there have been hundreds of thousands of men unemployed in the country for several months; our imports cost too much; and people who during the war could buy have not the same means, and business goes from had to worse.
The Minister of Finance is proud of the result obtained during the last fiscal year. The revenue has surpassed his expectations; it is approximately $432,000,000 against $349,746,334 last year. He declares that this increase is most satisfactory, albeit the times are not very good. Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister forgets to tell us that this sum of 432 millions does not represent ordinary revenue, but is made up of extraordinary taxation. I quote as follows the revenue for 1919-1920:-
Inland Revenue	$ 43,000,000
War taxes on industrial benefits.	40,000,000
Taxes on income	 35,000,000
Other war taxes	 17,000,000
[Stage Direction]
In 1920-1921, the revenue was as follows :-
Excise	$ 37,200,000
Industrial benefits	 40,000,000
War taxes-on income	 46,500,000
War tax on Inland Revenue.. ..	79,050,000
Other war taxes.. . .[DOT]	 2,355,000
[Stage Direction]
As you see, Mr. Speaker, the war taxes for 1919-1920 were 135 millions and $205,105,000 for 1920-1921. The hon. minister will tell you that with the ordinary revenue he has been able to pay the ordinary and the extraordinary expenses. I hold that the revenue which the minister to-day calls an ordinary one, is really one drawn from extraordinary sources, seeing that every year new taxes are added; the $135,000,000 of war tax in 1919-1920 hav-[Mr. RanetOt-I
ing been increased by new taxes in 1920, therefore for the last fiscal year ending on March 31, 1921, the war taxes brought in more than $70,000,000 over and above the 1920 taxes, and next year we shall still have a larger revenue with the tax on commerce; that is to say on our importations and exportations, sale taxes and on our business transactions in the country the taxes are as follows: 11 to 3 per cent- the taxes on our importations will amount to 21 to 4 per cent respectively; at the same time the taxes on alcohol will have doubled; so much so that next year instead of paying $205,000,000 of war tax, we shall be paying very closely to $300,000,000, and the hon. Minister of Finance will again declare before this House and the country: 'With the ordinary revenue, I have paid up both the current and unusual expenses," but what he has not mentioned is that he has collected $300,000,000 in war tax, since 1917; these did not exist before 1914.
But this is not all, Mr. Speaker. Take for instance the custom duties in 19191920 and 1920-1921. In 1920, it amounted to $167,000,000 and in 1921, it was $163,000,000; while before the war we had a revenue of $70,000,000. Why the difference? Is it owing to the increase of our population, if within the last six years our revenue has more than doubled? No, Sir, the reason will be found in the higher price we have paid for goods that have been bought since the war. In many cases the duties are paid ad valorem according to the value of the merchandise and these having tripled in value in many instances, the duties are three times as high. As an example, a piece of cloth, let us say a web of 100 yards at $1.40 per yard = $140 at 30 per cent duty=$42. Let us suppose that the same cloth had been bought in 1914, a web of 100 yards, exactly the same quantity-but the quality is not the same -these goods have trebled and even increased fourfold in price in many cases. As a base of comparison let us say it has increased three times, it is therefore no more 100 yards of cloth at $1.40 but at $4.20 which gives $420 at 30 per cent ad valorem=$126 which brings to the public treasury three times as much money. The minister is well acquainted with this fact, that the custom duties for the year 19211922 amount to $135,000,000 in comparison with $163,000,000 which they amounted to last year, not that our population is less than last year, but for the simple reason that goods we now buy have come down in price.

If such is the case, Sir, our people have thus paid, from 1915 up to this day, on an average more than double what they paid before the war, therefore, we have not only had war taxes bringing in an extraordinary revenue, but also from 60 to 80 million dollars in custom duties as an extraordinary revenue. Add these figures to the war taxes and you arrive to conclusion that this year we have paid very closely to $300,000,000 in new taxes, and that we shall be paying very near to $350,000,000 in 1921-1922. Mr. Speaker, the minister will tell us, that things were well done; but is it not a fact that the people played their part also? Shall we be better off next year? No, Sir, we shall be in a worse position owing to this further taxation. By this exportation and importation tax of li to 3 per cent and of 2i to 4 per cent, the hon. Minister of Finance will no doubt collect a large amount of money, because every one is called upon to pay, the poor even more than the rich. I have often heard remarks on the part of my good Montreal friends, which I could not endorse, with reference to the agricultural class not paying any income tax neither the higher paid artisans and that invariably the tax falls on the capitalist. I differ in opinion with them. The wholesale merchant of Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg or of anywhere else, who carries on a large business from which he derives large profits, certainly pays a large amount as an income tax; but that same merchant figures out first his expenses, before setting a price on his goods, and I am sure that he does not omit his rent, if he is a tenant, his municipal taxes, his staff and lastly his income tax, whether it be $50,000 or $100,000 and in the end we find that it is the people who pay.
Mr. McMASTER:: (Translation.) It is
"Baptiste" that pays.


Roch Lanctôt: (Translation.) My hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) says that it is always "Baptiste" that pays, and he is right. I therefore say that everybody is called upon to pay and you must not throw the stone at any one and proclaim that it is only a certain portion of the population that contribute to the revenue. Everybody pays, unfortunately even those who should not pay because they are not rich.
This induces me to make a remark regarding what my hon. friend from Mus-koka (Mr. McGibbon) said a moment ago. He asked: Where will our revenues come
from if vse have no custom duties. And he went on saying that we would have to impose heavy taxation in order to replace the amount now collected through the customs. For my part, whether the tax is a direct or an indirect one, 'the result is always the same: the people must ultimately pay.
The hon. Minister of Finances wants this House to vote $582,062,698 to cover the estimates for the year 1921-22, beside the $9,375,000 for the civil service bonus, or $591,437,698 in all. He gives us the following figures: Ordinary expenditures, $343, 021,594; capital expenditure, $27,459,127; demobilization, $7,777,380, making a total of $378,258,101. I have nothing ito say against ordinary expenditures, unless for instance we iShouild certainly economizlei *something as regards to public works. This year we might save from twelve to fifteen million dollars on works Which are not urgent and which mostly have been promised at election time in order to return either a minister or a member supporting the Government.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is not worth the price.


Roch Lanctôt: It is too expensive. We might also economize ion the Militia of my old and esteemed friend the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie). I have always strongly protested in this House against this folly of militarism in our country. When my hom. tfirienld the Minister of Militia asks the House to vote his militia estimates he goes into comparisons, he talks about our sister Dominions, he takes us to Europe, even to Asia and Africa and he concludes by stating that we are the only country in the world spending so little for her army. The hon. minister forgets to state that geographically we are so situated that we could cease (spending any more money for army purposes and that the other British colonies are not in a similar situation. This is why I think that not a cent should be spent for the next five years, but I am ready to allow a few military expenses so as to satisfy my imperialistic friends. This year we are spending twelve millions for the Militia. Why not cut this amount in half and spend only six millions.


An hon. MEMBER:: That's too much.


Roch Lanctôt: One of the hon. member says it is too much. Quite true, it is too much in my opinion, but I wanted to make suggestions to the Government although I am perfectly 'convinced they will not accept them. Does the hon. Minister

of Militia claim that at the present time it is absolutely necessary to give to a number of our young men a military training? Will the hon. minister state that it is absolutely necessary for us to have soldiers? Why? In case another war should take place in Europe is there a 'Government at Ottawa willing to throw us in that new war when we are practically ruined? For my part I would not send another single soldier in Europe to take part in another war. Was not our war against Prussians also directed against militarism which we wanted to destroy in the world? Now that we have the League of Nations some of our political men claint that our status is changed, that we have a different standing from what we had before the war. It is true that our 'status is changed, when we have to pay as well as the great European powers, but when it comes to receive, we shall revert to our colonial status, we 'shall be told that Downing Street still governs us and we will not get a cent of the war indemnity. We are mighty important people when it is a question of paying out but when there shlal be something to 'collect, we will -be assigned a back seat and we will not get a red cent.
But, that is not all. We have also an air fleet, so they say, which will cost $1,625,000 this year. Why should we have an air fleet at the present time? I fail to understand why we go on with such folies. If our forefathers could come back and were told that we are 'spending so much on militarism, they would say: What is the world becoming? In my opinion not a cent should 'be spent for such purposes and in this way we could save the country this amount of $1,625,000. I only wish we did not spend a dollar for that air fleet because we might thus save the country an expenditure of $1,625,000.
The hon. Minister of Militia says that the Mounted Police do not come under his jurisdiction, but I suppose there is a member of the Government Who has charge of this department and I must tell him just now, that it is shocking to see the Mounted Police parading the streets in Ottawa.
I have been here for 17 years, and I consider that the city of Ottawa does not need the Mounted Police f parading the streets. Ottawa is one of the most peaceful cities in the country, and therefore there is no necessity of keeping the Mounted Police here. That is why I say to the Government, with regard to this credit: You have about four million dollars, you may easily cut out two million and a half.

And that is not all. The hon. Minister of Marine has obtained for us a gift of three ships from the Mother Country- England. The upkeep of this present is quite expensive. The crew must be fed and paid and1 we must buy coal. This involves considerable expenditure. Under the circumstances, I would suggest that the minister place his gift in safety at Montreal, at the million dollar island, for example, or elsewhere, and leave It there for five years, so that we may save the country at least two million dollars a year, which would mean a saving of ten millions.
I am economical myself, I preach and practice economy, and if my hon. friends did the same, it would be to the greater benefit and happiness of the people.
The hon. Minister of Finance spoke the other day of non-productive investments, that is to say, which do not yield any returns. Where I come from we know nothing of this kind of investment. He mentioned the following:
C.N.R. Railway	$ 50,000,009
Grand Trunk	 89,687,633
Grand Trunk Pacific	 26,000,000
Total	$165,687,633
He told us that certain amounts should be charged to current expenditure of the year, 'but that he could not do it this year as there is already a large deficit, although he said at first that he had a surplus of 12 million dollars which subsequently was absorbed by a deficit. I must say that, so far as it concerns the railway question in which all Canada is interested, and particularly those who use them, who have goods to ship from one end of the country to the other, that there practically exists an embargo, at the present time, on the shipment of our goods. For several reasons, this railway policy has been disastious to the people of this country; all politicians are more or less responsible for that. The hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Davidson) began just now to discuss the question but he stopped suddenly. I have already had the occasion, during the session, to speak of railways; however, I wish to speak further on the subject. The party which is now in power is the same as in 1911, although it has changed its name.


Andrew Ross McMaster: An alias.


Roch Lanctôt: (Translation.) But the staff is the same. Some are dead, others have resigned, but it is still the Conservative party

call it what you will-it is the

party which has advocated this railway policy from 1911 until now.
The Prime Minister has frequently told us that the Liberal party were responsible for the present situation; that Sir Wilfrid Laurier's railway policy had been disastrous, and that the Liberal party wanted to wash their hands of this, claiming they were not responsible. I say that those who are most guilty are the present leaders of the Government. If Sir Wilfrid Laurier's policy was not good in 1911, why have you continued such a policy? If the railway construction from Port Arthur to Montreal was of no advantage to the people of this country, why, after the elections of 1911, did you continue it, with Mackenzie and Mann, and why, later, did you extend the Canadian Northern railway from the prairies to Vancouver. Is it our fault if we now have three transcontinental railways to go to the Pacific ocean? It has been the most disastrous policy which a Government could have adopted. But, what could have been done at the time-I blame both parties for this-what should have been done in 1911 would have been not to give 35 million dollars to Mackenzie and Mann, but to expropriate them and to settle with them once for all as early as 1911, and to use these branch-lines in the West as "feeders" for the Transcontinental National and then the Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific would have been a success. The Government of the day was not interested to make the Grand Trunk Padific a success, but the new Government whose leader was the right hon. member for King's (N.S.) (Sir Robert Borden), from the very moment they came into power, in 1911, endeavoured to destroy Sir Wilfrid Laurier's work. They did all they could; they made an investigation and some enthusiastic supporters of this Government endeavoured to disparage as much as possible Sir Wilfrid Laurier's undertaking, and to prevent the Grand Trunk from taking control of it. That is what that party has done. They committed a serious offence, when, for political purposes, they disparaged the property of the people of this country.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Slanderers.


Roch Lanctôt: 'rtiey were slanderers. It is awful for a party to destroy, simply for political purposes, property which cost $171,000,000. I say, Mr. Speaker, that a party holding such conduct will be severely punished in due
time. Is there a Government in a country like ours who are able to administer the railways, and particularly this Government who never made a success of any of their undertakings? For instance, they gave out contracts three years in advance and sometimes at a much higher price than was warranted. Just think, they under look to operate in accordance with what was being done in the United States the railways of this country, whose area is equal to that of. the United States, but whose population is only 8J millions, compared with 105 millions in the neighbouring Republic, then to apply here the eight hour day, according to the McAdoo schedule; and the result is that we have throughout the country many railways paralleling one another. Please notice what is being done here in the capital. There are twelve trains leaving Ottawa for Montreal every day, and the same number going in the opposite way, which makes twenty four trains daily.
I have a suggestion to make with a view to preventing our railway policy to ruin the country. I think the Government did not take the trouble to read the memorandum addressed to them by Lord Shaughnessy. As far as I am concerned, I have a right to speak in the name of the 234th part of this country, since we are 234 members of Parliament. Well, in my opinion, the sooner we get rid of our national railways, the better it will be; and personaly, I say very frankly that I am not very particular about the way in which we may get rid of them: Be it for one, of for five, or for one million dollars, I would get rid of them immediately. I would not confide the operation of our railways to a company like Mackenzie and Mann, but to a company like the Canadian Pacific, administered by a board of directors possessed of great experience. Then you would see a great change in the administration at the end of four or five years, and instead of having deficit upon deficit, we might have a surplus. But can you ever expect any return on a railway administered by a so-called independent board, for they contend that the Civil Service Commission is an independent body and that patronage has been abolished. But the Government is doing nothing without patronage. I shall refer to it later. For the moment, I am dealing with our railways and the way to ensure their effective operation. Whom do you see at the head of those railways? Mr. Hanna and Sir Hormisdas Laporte. What does Sir

Hormidas Laporte know about railways? He knows all about sugar and molasses, but absolutely nothing about railways. However they are the men who are expected to administer with profit our 17,000 miles of national railways.
Now we have the Grand Trunk on our hands. That company seems to be very fastidious; they will not accept the views of the Government nor the results of the arbitration. I would like to be the party to decide and I would soon settle their case; I would refuse to take control of that railway and I am sure people would approve of my decision. But this Government want to have the Grand Trunk; they want everything in the world, and then we shall have to pay for it. But what shall we pay with? The hon. Minister of Finance will impose some new taxes, and more taxes all the time.
The Government is responsible for this railway policy which is bearing so heavily on the people of this country. You might just as well say to the Government that there are dealers to-day who have very large stocks and who are in financial straits. Personally, as a hay merchant, I have lost money and I am going to lose some more. Why don't you help me out? The railway companies need but' to apply to the Government. The very men who led those railways to bankruptcy are still the advisers of the roads. Mackenzie and Mann are there, behind the screens, working in behalf of this Government. There is one thing that is always tempting all political, parties and it was the misfortune of many a country in the world:	The
elections are drawing near, and they often come sooner that it is desired.
There are two openings now; these elections were not wanted, but unfortunately, the representatives of these ridings died.
I understand that the Government require a lot of money for that; the big railway men are asked to contribute and thousands, nay, hundreds of thousands of dollars are secured in that way for electoral purposes. Later on, you cannot refuse to do a good turn to these gentlemen should they be embarrassed, and the people have to foot the Bill. I congratulate my friends of the Agrarian party for having adopted a better method, that of having the campaign funds voted by the riding which is to elect a representative. What I have found to be the best system is to work in the interest of my constituents, to tell the truth, to say whether such legislation is good or bad and when it is bad, to vote against it. Then I

go back to my constituency where I can be elected without disbursing a red cent.
The hon. Minister of Finance in his Budget speech, gave us the net debt of this country, but not our total of indebtedness. I looked in the Official Gazette and there I saw that the gross debt, of this country in March last, amounted to $3,000,000,000. I was particularly impressed by the amount of interest which we are paying on our debt and which amounts to almost $143,000,000. If our obligations were only $2,350,000,000, we would not be paying such a large amount of interest. Now I have always held and I still hold that the actual debt is represented by the total amount of our indebtedness, because we are not sure of getting back the amounts due to us which we include as assets. The Government has advanced money to foreign countries upon which it receives no interest and there are many loans, out of which we get no returns. Therefore I say that our debt amounts not only to $2,350,000,000, but reaches $3,000,000,000, and I am going to prove it. We are paying this year $142,000,000 for interest, that is an increase of $519,069.69 over last year. Our deficit of $101,000,000 for last year, will increase by so much our interests for 192223. It means that within two or three years we shall have to pay $150,000,000 for interests. Moreover, our railways do not pay their operating charges. We have to borrow and add that to capital.
If we maintain that railway policy, in five years from now, our debt will not only amount to $3,000,000,000, but judging by what our railways have cost us up to now -except the Grand Trunk-I do not think I am misleading the House in saying that we shall owe $1,000,000,000, for our railways alone. Three billions and one billion, make four billion dollars, and if we acquire the Grand Trunk which will cost, I suppose, four or five hundred million dollars and perhaps a good deal more, in five years, our total debt will certainly amount to $5,000,000,000. Therefore I say to you: What shall we become with such an enormous debt, and why should we have it? We owe it to our war-time folly, to our foolish acquisition of bankrupt railways, and also to the fact that we have adopted the McAdoo schedule. Again I ask you: Whj^ should we have adopted the eight-hour day for our railway employees? Today conductors and engineers earn more than professional men in the country districts. Some conductors are earning as much as $5,500, others $4,500 and $4,000.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Per month.


Roch Lanctôt: No, per year. Is there any reason why, to-day, after the war, and poor as we are, we should maintain the eight-hour day? Not at all, Mr. Speaker. Let us come back to pre-war conditions and let us establish a ten-hour day for all railway employees. An eight-hour day is sufficient for men who are working in factories and mines, but for railway employees as well as for us farmers, a ten-hour working day does no harm. It is a well known fact that railway employees, whether on our national roads or on the Canadian Pacific railway, are not working only eight hours a day, but in many cases, sixteen and eighteen hours, in other to get time and a half. Under such conditions it is very hard to come out even.
I was saying a moment ago that I was surprised to see in the Estimates such large provisions for demobilization. The armistice was signed nearly three years ago and yet this Parliament is asked to vote seven or eight million dollars for the purpose of demobilization. I think that it is simply a pretext given by the Government to take better care of their friends, and we have a proof in that certain lawyers in Winnipeg have been well oared for, not so very long ago, out of those demobilization Estimates. Somebody assured me that a law firm in Winnipeg, drew the small amount of $56,000 for 102 days of work. This, I admit, was unsatisfactory to other firms in that city, so they had to retain the services of other lawyers in order to do away with all bitterness. The Department of Justice did that, they took in some other lawyers and, as stated before the Committee on Public Accounts a few days ago, $180,000 were paid to lawyers in Winnipeg to secure the punishment of workingmen who had indulged in seditious appeals during the Winnipeg strike, it was found necessary to hire the help of lawyers in order to have those people imprisoned. Mr. Speaker, I protest against this fraudulent appropriation of the money voted by this House for a special purpose and not with the intention of feeding any Winnipeg lawyers in spite of the well-known fact that some ten odd lawyers are to be found in the offices of the Department of Justice at Ottawa. Of course, many lawyers are required there, as the Minister of Justice can devote but a small part of his time to the business, for the reason that he is too busy outside, having estates to manage, banks to take
care of as director, too many "jobs," as our good Canadians say. He wants some help, and so much the more so as he is. advanced in years and suffering from illness. Then, he has to keep tab of all his salaries, the amount of his pension, of his investments; this also requires a good deal of time and, therefore, there must be a good many lawyers at work in his department. I am told that there are ten. Why not take two, for instance, and send them where trouble happens to arise. Instead of paying $56,000 to outside lawyers one might have relieved the congestion in the Department of Justice and left there a staff of eight. I do not suppose that a business man, a hay dealer or a wholesale dealer in Montreal would apply to a lawyer in Ottawa with respect to a case he had to plead in this city if he had already retained the services of another lawyer with respect to his general business. I can safely say that the Government would save at least $500,000 a year by resorting to the services of the lawyers whom they have already engaged, and permanently so, at Ottawa, and by leaving the outside lawyers with their own business. I am pretty sure that everything would be carried on to the best advantage in this way. The right hon. Prime Minister has inquired, on many occasions, what was the stand of the Opposition as regards the tariff question, stating that the next election would be fought on that mere question. Speaking for myself only, I must tell the Prime Minister right away, that as far as I am concerned and as far as the county of Laprairie-Napierville is concerned, he will have some other questions to settle with me and with my electors if, as I hope, we are to have an election shortly. The Prime Minister must be judged on what he has done to date. If he has sinned he must be punished. The man who dies to-day will not be punished for the faults which he might have committed twenty years from now, but for the faults committed in the past. I merely want the Prime Minister to be punished for the sins he has committed and not for those which he might commit in the future. The farmers in our counties know a tree by its fruit. "The tree which bears no good fruit shall be cut and cast into the fire." Of course, I would not tell my electors to sentence the Prime Minister to be thrown in the fire, but I shall have him condemned to go back to the Opposition side, that is the only punishment I wish him.

As far as I am concerned, I would like to discuss the treatment which we have received at the hands of the Prime Minister. I remember that, on several occasions, we have been charged by hon. gentlemen opposite with being cowards and slackers. Well, let me tell the Prime Minister right now, that he will find the electors of my county to be no cowards and that they will go to the polling booths and deposit their ballots in the ballot boxes, but not in his favour. The right hon. Prime Minister will leave for Europe shortly, in order to attend the Imperial conference. I look unfavourably on his departure, but, after all, the majority of the House has authorized it. I am very much afraid he will come back to this country with new obligations imposed upon the Canadian people, although he will have received no mandate aforehand to bind the country; but, anyhow, this House has given him carte blanche.


Mr. TRAHAN:: (Translation.) On
division.


Roch Lanctôt: (Translation.) . . . on division. I am not sending him, nor is my hon. friend from Nicolet (Mr. Trahan). However, he will leave shortly. I suppose he will be wise enough not to take an unseaworthy boat. I hope he will take a seaworthy boat so as to get overseas safely; he will make a good choice and I approve him. But when he taunts the members of the Agrarian party for selecting their boat and getting in ours, being unwilling to risk themselves in the Government's leaky craft, then I disapprove him. I want him to leave on a good boat that he may sail safely, but I want him also to let others have their own say in choosing a craft for themselves.


Mr. R. H. BUTTS (Cape Breton South and Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the Budget speeeh has taken a most peculiar turn in the remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just preceded me (Mr. Lanctot). He talked about everything except what his own side of the House have been talking about since this debate began. Surely the platform they have adopted since this debate has been in progress was wide enough to admit my hon. friend, for it included all kinds of fantastic economic theories. My hon. friend, however, has chosen to confine his remarks to railway matters and naval affairs, and he never even touched on the question of pressed hay, in which I understand he is very much interested.

I have followed with a great deal of attention the speeches delivered on both sides of the House, and the difference between the two sides is really quite marked. I do not think anybody with any degree of reason whatever could have any doubt_ as to the policy of hon. members who sit to your right, Mr. Speaker. I do not think there is need for anything further to be said as to our attitude on this side of the House after the speech of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen). The policy outlined by him is, I believe, unanimously supported by hon. members on this side of the House. But when we turn to the other side we find the greatest medley of economic inconsistencies that could possibly be conceived of. Take, for instance, my hon. friend from North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie). When leader of the Opposition he laid down a fiscal policy; it is there crystallized in Hansard for all time. He said:
No, while we may have iron and steel in the raw state in this country, there may be others who can pour their products into this country and keep us forever from having an industry of that kind for our own. If I were to say that, and to allow the natural resources of this country to remain forever in a dormant state, I do not consider that I would be doing what would be in the best interests of my country or for the general advancement of the people. If to take some specific object of that kind and to provide for it in the way in which I think it should be provided for its Toryism, or protectionism, or unreasonable, as regards the general trade of the country, I must plead guilty.
That is a very clear definition of where he stands, and certainly it is good, sound protectionist doctrine. I understand that my hon. friend has since very humbly apologized for his stand on that occasion. I am told he has said he then made a mistake, and I am quite prepared to believe that, for in this Parliament on more than one occasion he has said he was not a protectionist, but that he was in favour of bounties. Now if there is any vice in protection, in bounties you have the most vicious type of protection.
Coming to my hon. friend from Maison-neuve and Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux), who sits next, he is the greatest protectionist in all Quebec when he is in the constituency of Maisonneuve, but when in Gaspe, in his advocacy of free trade he is only rivalled by my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr Clark).
Coming down a bit further to the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), he is all things to all constituencies.

It makes no difference what constituency he is in, he has a coat that will fit it.
Coming now to the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), I can remember, though it is quite a few years ago, hearing him deliver a speech in the city of Sydney, right in the centre of the coal fields of Cape Breton, in which he said that if the coal trade of Nova Scotia could not stand without protection, then let it fall. Here in this House, a few nights ago, he told us that he was not a free trader, and never had been.
Coming now to my imaginative friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster), at the Liberal convention here in Ottawa, he said: Yes I am a free trader, but in theory only. My imaginative friend imagines he is a free trader, but I do not think there is any one in this House imaginative enough to imagine for one moment that he does anything more than imagine he is a free trader. He is not one in reality.
Coming now to my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon), after talking along protectionist lines all night he turned round at the heel of the hunt and said that tariff for revenue was good, but no tariff at all was better, and then sat down, so we did not know which side of the fence he was on. He left us in doubt as to his position, on the tariff.
My hon. friend from Victoria and Carle-ton (Mr. Caldwell) is, of course, an out and out free trader. He was a free trader in potatoes and farm products all during the war when he was getting $4 and $5 a bushel, but now that this new tariff has come into effect in the United States and closed, him out, he is no longer a free trader. He is a protectionist now, and he wants the Canadian Government to rstain the Canadian market, not only for potatoes, but for farm products generally. He would welcome an expert duty on pulpwood. So you see his is a brand-new type of protection, different altogether from that advocated by hon. gentlemen who sit on the front benches on this side.
My hon. friend from Queen's (Mr. Sinclair) is in favour of an altogether different type of protection. He talks neither free trade nor protection, but under some kind of a veil he advocates a new species of protection that I never heard of before. He tells us that in Prince Edward Island they cannot sell potatoes at 17 cents. Now potatoes were on the free list up till very recently, but when the American tariff is put on, my hon. friend runs for cover, and
seeks protection of a very peculiar type. He wants this Government to reduce the freight rates on potatoes from Prince Edward Island by about two-thirds for several months, and I suppose later on he will not need so much protection. It is not strange, therefore, that I should call this a medley of economic contradictions. Turn it what way you will, the most you can possibly make of it is that they cling to that old phanton of free trade, while in reality they are protectionists of one kind or another, save only my imaginative and hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) and my hon. friend from Bed Deer (Mr. Clark), who hold to that old phanton, and who are the only remaining examples of an almost extinct species.
Now, let us just look very briefly over the fiscal policy of this country, as far back as you wish to go. You will find that when protection was adopted four or five hundred miles of railroads were all that we had in the Dominion, and under the protectionist policy which has obtained from 1878 until to-day, this Dominion, with a population varying from, at that time, five and a half millions or six millions to eight or liine millions to-day, has built forty thousand miles of railway. To-day, although perhaps we should be better off without some of the railways, the Dominion of Canada has a greater mileage of railroads per capita than any other country in the world, and they have been built under protection. Previous to 1911 we had spent approximately $250,000,000 on a canal system, opening up a waterway from the mouth of the St. Lawrence 2,500 miles into the interior of this country; and that was built under protection.
When hon. gentlemen opposite were in opposition previous to 1896 they yelled free trade, so that the capitalists did place some amount of credence in their declarations. They thought that after the preaching of years, surely the Liberal party would do something to bring about a lower tariff, and for that very reason, during those years, there was something unstable in the commercial conditions of Canada. But when in 1897 the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) brought down a protectionist Budget and further stabilized the trade of Canada, then it was that the capitalists began to feel confidence in the resources of this country; and during the ten years that followed there came into Canada $300,000,000 of American money to build up factories and develop the resources of the

Dominion. It was realized then that there was no longer a dispute between the protectionists and the free traders. The American capitalists began to realize that we were all of one fold, with one shepherd; we were all protectionists; hence the stability of trade, hence the influx of capital, hence the golden age which my hon. friend from Maisonneuve and Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) has spoken of. Can he expect any one to believe that it was their political doctrines that brought about the age of prosperiy that lasted from the time when our fiscal policy and our trade conditions were stabilized, right down to the beginning of the war? I do not think he will seriously contend anything of the kind. It is true that if they did not raise the tariff of their predecessors, neither did they make any attempt to cut it down as it stood when they came into power.
Let me look for a moment at the condition of our foreign trade under protection. In 1866 our foreign trade amounted to $131,000,000, including imports and exports; in 1890 it was $218,000,000; but by 1900-from 1890 to 1900 were protectionist years-we increased our foreign trade from $218,000,000 to $693,000,000. We did that under protection. The home interchanges in Canada in 1911 amounted to $1,000,000,000 and the yearly wages paid out in Canada at that time amounted to $250,000,000. These are some of the figures that make us pause and consider; these are the conditions that made the Laurier Government also pause and think, and that prompted the member for Shelburne and Queen's, who was formerly Minister of Finance, to throw to the winds those whimsical ideas he entertained while in Opposition, when he felt no responsibility whatever upon his shoulders, and to adopt the policy that had proven itself in the country, the policy of wiser statesmen than he. That hon. gentleman's wisdom consisted principally in knowing enough about the tariff to be guided by those who were more conversant with the situation than he was.
Well, time went on and my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's could not get clear of that little hobby horse of his younger days; and the time came when he and the late Hon. William * Paterson went down to Washington to negotiate the Reciprocity Pact. Now, I have read a good portion of the book of life, and I have read a few more books, and I have learned from them that one very strong criterion of truth is public opinion. If that is so, then I say that the criterion of truth in

all of Canada's days has been against the idea of free trade, or even of a low tariff. When that pact was negotiated, the very first thing we knew in Canada was that the legislatures of British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick passed resolutions opposing it. Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan approved of it; the provinces of Ontario and New Brunswick legislated against it. Pulp-wood and timber cut on Crown and leased lands were not allowed to be exported to the United States. So you see the provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick, through their legislatures, protested against this pact. Let me just reiterate the words "that public opinion is a very strong criterion of truth." If it is, and we are guided by it, then we must say that a fair, moderate, and just protection to our industries is what the people of Canada wish for and what they will have retained.
I wish now to make a few remarks upon our steel trade. I am not going to speaK of the coal trade to-night. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to do so because there is a special committee now considering that very question. They are taking evidence but they have, as yet, made no report and anything that I might say now would at least be characterized as inopportune. I shall, however, speak briefly upon the iron and steel industry. Now if we follow the history of that industry in the United States, with respect to the tariff conditions that have prevailed, we will find that the production of pig iron in the adjoining republic has assumed enormous proportions and developed to its present position under a high tariff. In 1868, when the industry was in its infancy, a tariff of $9 per ton was placed upon |pig iron, This tariff was in 1874 reduced to $7 per ton, at which figure it remained until 1887 when it was further reduced to $6.72 per ton. In 1894 the tariff was further reduced to $4, at which figure it remained until 1910 when a reduction to $2.50 per ton was made. In the meantime, and as a result of the protection that it had received under that tariff, the pig iron industry of the United States had grown to such enormous proportions that the duty "was entirely removed. Pig iron was put on the free list, and that product in the United States competed with all the countries of the world. The development of the industry was so immense that it was

able, and more than able, to engage in such competition.
Take steel ingots and billets. The manufacture of steel ingots and billets in the United States was developed under similar circumstances. The tariff on certain grades of ingots and billets in 1868 varied from $25 to $70 per ton. The tariff was reduced by 10 per cent in 1874, but this reduction was afterwards eliminated in 1879. In 1894 there was a further reduction when the tariff varied, according to the quality of steel, from $5.36 to $83.90 per ton. The tariff was greater in 1894 on steel billets in the United States than they could be sold for to-day, not speaking of duty at all. Later on, under that tariff, the time came when they were able to make those products duty free, the steel industry having increased to such enormous proportions. The same is true in regard to wire rods, the manufacture of which received similar encouragement. In 1868 a tariff of $30 a ton was first imposed, the result being the development of the industry on a very large scale. It was the same with nails. In 1868 a duty of $30 a ton was imposed on nails. The United States, however, found that the duty of $30 a ton was not sufficient for the English nail was still coming into the country. They therefore increased the duty on nails in 1874 to $80 per ton, less 10 per cent. In 1879 they eliminated the 10 per cent and imposed a flat duty of $80 per ton. The protection was continued until 1894 when the industry had developed to such an extent that the duty on nails was reduced to 25 per cent. The United States was still able to compete with its rivals notwithstanding the reduction, and to-day those same nails are on the free list. It is said, I think on fairly good grounds, that from the steel works in Sydney some 600 different grades of nails went into England during all the years of the war. The United States supplied all its different grades of iron and steel to England, and their nails and their steel products are to be found in the markets of every country in the world. Notwithstanding the fact that they had a high protective tariff, so well established did their steel industry become that they have practically captured the markets of the world, and if they have not done that they are at least able to compete with all other countries at the present time, their products being on the free list.
Now, having that knowledge of the steel industry of the United States, just look at
the present condition of the steel industry here in Canada. We have three large concerns manufacturing steel and steel products in the Dominion, and what are the conditions? In the fiscal year ending March 31, 1920, we imported 1,144,430 tons of iron ore amounting in value to $4,095,839, and for the ten months ending January 1, 1921, we imported 1,302,207 tons having a value of $4,886,942. In agricultural implements we imported from the United States in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1920, $6,792,245 worth; we imported boilers, windmills, pumps, etc., to the value of $22,705,319; of castings we imported $1,958,311 worth; of chains we imported $3,395,496 worth; and so I could go on through all the different grades of steel and steel products imported from the United States alone until I come to the grand total of $178,661,606.
There is your low tariff! There is your hundred and seventy-eight and a half million dollars of Canadian money going into the United States to build up the industries of a foreign and rival nation to the detriment of our own manufacturers, and to the detriment of our own workingmen, who should have earned every dollar of that money. And still you talk free trade. Free trade with whom? Free trade with the United States that has to-day perhaps the highest tariff wall erected against us of any other nation in the world? Trade freely with them? Why, our free trade friend from Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) even went so far as to forget his free trade principles and last night talked retaliation. And he was rebuked by the gentleman who sat quite near him, who in bis speech afterwards said retaliation should not be suggested lest it might end in a tariff war. Was that not a very consistent conversation to take place between two paragons of free trade?
Now, Mr. Speaker, I shall pay attention for a few moments to some remarks made this afternoon by my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar). There is an election down in New Brunswick, and my hon. friend referred to it this afternoon.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Who is the Liberal candidate?


Robert Hamilton Butts: They are going to let
that part of it remain in abeyance until the general election. But my hon. friend could not pass over that election without besmirching himself a little more than the man he intended to besmirch. He had to fan as much as he could the smouldering embers of bigotry and race

that have on many occasions, I have no doubt, done yeoman service for gentlemen opposite. He attempted to lead his followers to drink at the polluted stream of religious and racial bigotry and fanaticism; and he would be pleased, I have no doubt, to see them drink at that polluted stream with the same avidity that a buzzard pounces upon his carrion prey.
But, Sir, let me say that he is not altogether alone in that respect, although I had hoped there were none in this House to descend to such arguments. Yet I read in the Montreal Gazette this quotation taken from the nomination day speech at St. Francois du Lac of my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux). He said:
' When on the 2:8 th you mark your cross, mark it like Laurier would mark his cross if he were voting that day. His shadow is over this assembly, as it hovers over Parliament. He follows our deliberations from the skies and is asking if his compatriots and Canadians of all languages will renew the present regime.
My hon. friend- seems to take on some of Mr. Stead's theories. He is a little spiritualistic-more spiritualistic, I think, than spiritual. But according to the Montreal Star-and, Sir, this is a very delicate subject which I am going to approach, and I wish to deal with it in all reverence and in all respect-my hon. friend from Maisonneuve is reported as having said:
"Meighen is the father of conscription," went on Mr. Lemieux. , "We cannot talk conscription without some emotion. While the Hon. Mr. Ballantyne was trailing his sword in London and Paris, my only son was in the trenches. He is gone; and it seems that I should pay testimony to his memory by working to punish those who brought the atrocity of conscription on our country."
Now, Mr. Speaker, if that is not partisanship gone mad I do not know what is. It is not often, that we find a man who deliberately uses the memory of his departed and lamented offspring to attempt to gain political aggrandizement by playing upon the feelings of an excited nomination day audience and making his departed son the object of commiseration. How much more he would have been admired even by that excited audience had he said to them: "My son was no conscript; he was a volunteer. When his country needed him he sprang to her assistance. He drew his sword in her defence; he bared his breast to the enemies of his country; he in the end made the supreme sacrifice that his country might live." The hon. gentleman might have said to the youngi men of Quebec: "Had you followed his example, 
conscription in this country would have been unnecessary. Had that course been taken by my hon. friend it would have been an honourable course; the memory of his son would be doubly revered and he himself would be doubly respected.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that the leader of the Opposition is not in the House, for I feel compelled to pay a small amount of attention to him for a few moments. In a previous debate in the session the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria made use of some such expression as this: that one of the many weaknesses of this Government was that it was at war with labour. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that this Government is so very bellicose as to be at war with labour, or vice versa. If labour is at war with this Government it is doubly bellicose, for certain it is that it has been at war with the leader of the Opposition for many years. Down in our county, some years ago, and also about the same time in Cumberland county, Nova Scotia, while my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition was Minister of Labour, we had a strike in which about 5,000 men were involved. On the morning that the strike broke out the leader of the Opposition, then the Minister of Labour received from M. J. Gillies, M.P.P., of Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, a supporter of the Murray Government at that time, a telegram in which he said:
Five thousand employees Dominion Coal Company on strike here. Situation looks serious. Important that you get here immediately and try to effect a settlement.
How Mr. Macdonald, then the member for Pictou county in this House in the Liberal interest, found out about that is more than I can tell. Suffice it to say that on the same date he wrote a letter to the then Minister of Labour, the present leader of the Opposition, in which he said:
Let me congratulate you upon the fact that you were not troubled with an election and that you have got into the saddle without very much trouble.
It was hinted at that time that the congratulation was not altogether sincere; Mr. Macdonald was very much disappointed, I understand, that he did not get that portfolio. However, the letter went on to say .
I have just teen talking on the phone with our mutual friend Alex. Johnston, and our joint opinion with regard to the situation in Sydney is that at the present stage it iis not wise or prudent for you to come down or take part in the situation. There was a rumour in Sydney that you were to be asked to come

down, and I am writing as a result of my interview with Johnston, to say that I think for the present that you should not come down. We will advise you a little later in the matter.
Now, that appears to me, offhand, to be a little bit mure on the side of Liberalism than on the siue of the labouring men; it was the Liberal party's interests, not the labourihg men's interests, that were being considered, ivir. Alex. Johnston, then the member for South Cape Breton, and Mr. E. M. Macdonald, then the Liberal representative for Pictou county, who at the same time held a retainer from the Dominion Coal Company-these gentlemen went into solemn c.nclave and advised the Minister of Labour as to what it was wise for him to do-no doubt from a political viewpoint. Matters went on; letters passed to and fro, until finally Mr. Macdonald wrote along somewhat-


Mr. McKENZIE:: I presume the hon. member knows that he is reading a letter which was stolen-taken from the files.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I do not care whether it was stolen or not.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I believe that.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I did not steal it. My hon. friend car see that I am reading from Hansard, not from a letter at all.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My hon. friend is quite welcome to all the capital he can make of it.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.
Mr. BUTTS [DOT] Whether I am welcome or not, I am going to have it. Mr. Macdonald then writes to the Minister of Labour, the present leader of the Opposition, as follows:
The strike situation in Nova Scotia has been summarized in this way, that in Inverness the strike practically does not exist. There are some men who are not working, but these men are not necessary to the adequate operation of the mines. In the Dominion Coal Company's works, from which I have just returned, the company are rapidly increasing their output, and the men are only being kept out on strike, at least a great portion of them, by the actual stories which the resources of the United Mine Workers' people supply to them, of the fact that the company are going to settle and various reasons are given for this from week to week. I do not doubt at all that the company will be successful there, and there may be a break very shortly.
There is no doubt in the world that Mr. Macdonald took it for granted that there was reassuring evidence that the company was going to win out and that the labouring men were going to be defeated in the strike. The letter continues:
I think that the men will eventually realize that the company will not on any terms settle their compromise. The Springhill situation is one I am not advised about and is really very serious. The situation at Inverness and the action of the United Mine Workers is a direct and absolute defiance of the provisions of the Conciliation Act, and I think it would be a great mistake if the department itself-not the company or any outside party or person-did not proceed against the United Mine Workers people who came out on strike in disregard of that Act. I notice by the press that inquiries are being made by the department with reference to the circumstances, and I am quite sure that you will find the facts to be that the strike is one which is in contravention to the Act. And can assure you of my fullest support in so doing if you should arrange to have these proceedings initiated. It seems to me that the effect of the department proceeding against this infraction of their own law would be a very good move in Nova Scotia.
He continues:
At the present time public opinion is strongly against the strikers and against every one who is connected with them, and there is no question about their desire to have the matter speedily dealt with by a strong hand. In the event of your taking any proceedings, I would suggest that the matter be put in the hands of some recognized lawyer of ability, such as Mr. Roscoe, of Kentville, who has been acting for the Militia Department and making some investigations in that matter. I should be very glad to hear from you in regard to this matter.
It would appear from the entire correspondence-it is rather lengthy, and I do not wish to weary the House by reading it- that the Labour Department in that strike was being advised by the solicitor of the Dominion Coal Company, Mr. E. M. Macdonald, who was then a member of Parliament, representing Pictou county in this House. There were prosecutions down there. But let me call this one fact-and it is a fact-to the attention of the House. Not only were there prosecutions; but before there was any overt act, before there was anything that showed sign or semblance of disorder in the entire community, a large detachment of soldiers landed there. When I say this, I wish to assure the House that prior to the time that those soldiers arrived, there was no such thing as a disturbance or a violation of the law in any one particular case. Shortly after the soldiers arrived there, the men were holding a procession, not a military parade or anything like tb't. They carried no arms; they were peaceful, peaceable, law-abiding men; they had shown no sign of attempting to disturb the serenity of the entire com-

munity; but while is that state of mind those men were parading, a line was drawn and a machine gun was set up before Bridgeport Catholic church and the men were ordered not to pass that line on peril of being fired upon. That was done while the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) was Minister of Labour. Do you wonder then that I say that the men are not sufficiently bellicose to be at war with this Government because they are already at war with the Opposition and the leaders of the Opposition. They may forgive those things; they are a forgiving people, but they have good memories. I feel very much inclined to believe that before the Opposition in this House can hold out any hopes of winning seats in Cape Breton county at least, they will have to swap horses, even if they do that when crossing the stream.
I have finished pretty nearly all that I intended to say, and the night is getting late. I have only this to say, in conclusion, that I notice down in the "Annex" they seem to be a little bit stronger than those hon. gentlemen in the official Opposition, and it seems strange to me how they are going to affect .a union, or anything approaching the marital tie. You have to raise your tariff before you can come up to those protectionists opposite or you have to lure them away with your free-trade theories, and I cannot very well understand how you are going to carry on the negotiations when I consider the fact that not a man in the "Annex" can talk French. I would ask you gentlemen of the "Annex" down there to consider these matters and to see if it is not possible for you-


Georges Henri Boivin: I must remind the hon. member that he should address the Chair.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I beg your pardon, Sir- to see if it is not possible for them to take the advice of the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) the other evening, when he told them to throw away the mask, to come out into the open and to form the union in order that we might possibly have a little bit of jollification before we have an election.
On motion of Mr. Proulx (Prescott) the debate was adjourned.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 137, to amend and consolidate the Acts respecting Quebec Steamship Company.-Mr. Casgrain.

Bill No. 43, to incorporate Standard Insurance Company, and recommending that the title be changed to " An Act to incorporate Ensign Insurance Company."- Mr. Mowat.
On motion of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen the House adjourned at 12.06 a.m. Wednesday.
Wednesday, May 18, 1921.